The Just War Tradition

In the Fall of 2006, Canon Kelly and I taught a series of classes on contemporary issues. The first class was on the Just War Tradition. The following was provided as a handout for the class:

The Just War Tradition
Trinity Cathedral
September 7, 2006
Brian Baker

A set of ethical guidelines to determine whether a state can go to war and what actions can be used in war, initially developed by St. Augustine and extensively developed throughout the centuries. The just war tradition puts limits on the use of force in an attempt to limit our impulse for vengeance, power, etc. It’s use in our political discourse is evidenced by the title given to the first Gulf War, “Operation Just Cause.”

“The classic tradition . . . begins with the presumption that rightly constituted public authority is under a strict moral obligation to defend the security of those for whom it has assumed responsibility, even if this puts the magistrate’s own life in jeopardy.” George Weigel, “Moral Clarity in a Time of War.” First Things

“The just war argument recognizes that there are circumstances in which the first and most urgent obligation in the face of evil is to stop it.” George Weigel, “Moral Clarity in a Time of War.”

Jus Ad Bellem (Justice of War)
A state is justified in going to war if the following 6 criteria are met:

just cause A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause. In the classic just war tradition, “just cause” was understood as defense against aggression, the recovery of something wrongfully taken, or the punishment of evil. As the tradition has developed since World War II, the latter two notions have been largely displaced, and “defense against aggression” has become the primary, even sole, meaning of “just cause.”

declared by a proper authority A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

possessing right intention A war can redress a wrong, not annihilate the enemy or exact punishment. The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. Some would argue that the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

having a reasonable chance of success A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

last resort A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

proportionality The desired end should be proportional to the means used. (This is a cost-benefit analysis. The value of the benefit (goal, i.e. restore a border) should be proportional to the cost (lives lost, etc.)

Jus In Bello (Justice in War)
discrimination Who are legitimate targets? (Noncombatant immunity, wounded, etc.)
proportionality How much force is morally appropriate? (Minimal force, limited objectives.)

Jus Post Bellum (Justice after war)

Onward Christian Soldiers?

In the Fall of 2006, Canon Kathleen Kelly and I wrote a series of commentaries for the Sacramento News and Review. This was the first and was written in early September.

Onward Christian Soldiers?
I met Jesus at West Point. It was my girlfriend (another cadet) who made the introduction. She sang in the choir. I went to church to impress her. And I heard about Jesus. It was the unconditional love that first caught my attention. Through the teachings of Jesus, I learned that God loved me, and loved everybody else. I learned about forgiveness and acceptance. I learned about a force in the world that was moving creation toward wholeness.

I drove tanks and fired anti-aircraft guns. I threw hand grenades. Blowing things up was exciting and exhilarating. In Bible study I read Jesus’ commands to love enemies. In Physics class I learned to graph the trajectory of an artillery shell.

It didn’t really seem crazy at the time. At West Point, soldiering was an honorable profession. We were to manage the use of violence so that peace was maintained with the fewest people harmed. We were trained to use the minimum amount of force necessary and to spare the lives of civilians. We were trained to disobey illegal or immoral orders. We had a moral obligation to protect others, even if it cost us our lives.

It didn’t seem crazy because we were the “good guys.” We trusted that our nation would go to war only as an absolute last resort. Our cause would be clearly just. Civilian deaths would be few and tragic. We would not torture.

Now it seems crazy. We are no longer the obvious “good guys.” We have invaded and destabilized a country without provocation and without international support. We had no good plan for stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq. We have killed countless (literally) women and children. Our poorly supported soldiers have tortured innocent Iraqis.

Each act can be explained or justified as a reasonable post 9/11 response. That does not make them right.

As a West Pointer and as a Christian, I am angry and heartbroken at how we have chosen to deploy our military. As a priest, I am concerned about the soul of our nation as we consider more military intervention. I am certain that the wisdom in our great religious traditions can help us find more creative and life-giving responses to terrorism.

-Brian Baker