Getting to Know the Just War Tradition

05/28/13+ Share

In his May 23 speech on national security, President Obama claimed that America’s current war against al-Qaida is a just war. Here’s what he said:

"Moreover, America’s actions are legal. We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force. Under domestic law and international law, the United States is at war with al-Qaida, the Taliban, and their associated forces. We are at war with an organization that right now would kill as many Americans as they could if we did not stop them first. So this is a just war, a war waged proportionally, in last resort and in self-defense."

Many Christians have a fuzzy notion of what just war is about, but few have really studied it in depth. So when a politician or church leader claims that a particular war is just and it seems to be fought for a good cause, we assume they are genuinely adhering to this tradition.

My point in this blog is not to evaluate the President’s claim, but to briefly introduce readers to the just war tradition.

There are four common approaches to war:

1. Blank Check – I must support whatever war my government wages.

2. Holy War – God wants his people to wage war against a particular unholy people.

3. Principled Pacifism – war is wrong no matter what.                        

4. Just War – whether a war is right or wrong needs to be evaluated according to specific criteria.

The Christian tradition has a long history of affirming the ongoing relevance of positions 3 and 4. Although many God-fearing folk have adopted approaches 1 and 2 in recent years, most scholars and educated church leaders have pretty much rejected them. Although some admit that God is free to wage holy war whenever God wills, they often clarify that some sort of dramatic divine revelation would be necessary to ensure that such is the case.

President Obama is therefore being quite strategic in claiming to stand within the widely respected just war tradition. He would not have been elected president if he was a pacifist. He wants to clearly distance himself from the religious extremism that is associated with Holy War. And he doesn’t want people to have the impression that he can do whatever he wants on account of being president (blank check). He wants us to think that he is carrying out the people’s will.

So he presents himself as one who submits to church-approved criteria (which originated outside of the church and is still affirmed by many unbelievers) for discerning when a war is just. He also shows that he is familiar with this longstanding tradition by citing a few of the criteria. For the sake of convenience I list below some of the most commonly recognized just war criteria. This list varies somewhat and its meaning has evolved over time, but it should add a bit more depth to your understanding if you are new to this topic. I have adapted this list from a chapter on just war from John Howard Yoder’s forthcoming book (of which I am co-editor) Revolutionary Christian Discipleship. The most robust defense of this tradition is Paul Ramsey’s The Just War. For an insightful critique, see Yoder’s When War Is Unjust.

1. The intention must be good. Intention may sometimes mean the long-range goal. A war must be undertaken for the peace of the world and not for some less worthy cause like hatred or selfishness.

2. Only a just authority can wage a just war. A bandit or private citizen cannot wage a just war. Only a legitimate governmental agent can do that.

3. The cause must be justified. That could be broken down into many subcases and depends largely upon the specific cause in question.

4. The means must be limited. This has to do with how you wage a war. The means must be limited by the rights of some people not to be harmed. That would include immunity for noncombatants, as well as neutral or third parties. The means are also limited by stated rights, such as the modern treaties on the conduct of war that have been signed by most civilized nations. Limits are imposed also by the inner logic of proportionality: the war must not do more harm than good.

5. The war must be winnable. If there is no reasonable likelihood of winning, then it is wrong to wage a war even for a good cause.

6. It must be a matter of last resort. If there is any other way to obtain a goal without the use of war, then the war is not justified.

I leave it to you to judge whether the war on terror meets these criteria or whether or not it is the best Christian position. I for one do not identify with any of the four positions on warfare listed above. Scripture’s stance toward war and the calling of God’s people is more complicated—though blank check certainly has no place in Christian thought!

I do, however, believe that it would be great progress for any state to genuinely submit to these criteria. It is worth noting, however, that no state that has ever wanted to wage a war has ever publicly withdrawn from one on the basis that it did not fit these criteria. That does call into question how useful it is in practice. If it is only used to rubber stamp a war after it has already been waged on other grounds, then the tradition is not being respected at all and people of good will are simply being duped.

I also think that those who are opposed to war in principle and who work hard to develop skills at reconciliation and peace-making should be considered extremely helpful resource persons for just war advocates who are trying to determine whether they are, in fact, in a “last resort” situation. In other words, you don’t know something is a last resort until you have worked tirelessly to exhaust every other alternative.

That being the case, true pacifists (peace warriors, not “passivists” who do nothing) and just war advocates should desire to work side by side together with the same convictions and motivations up until the very point that it has been determined by the just war side that war is the only step that remains. The fact that pacifists and just war advocates are seldom found working together testifies that many pacifists are not committed to peacemaking and that many just war proponents are equally uncommitted to peace and the “last resort” criteria. Without these two commitments, the just war tradition has no backing from serious Christian thinkers.

http://www.walkandword.com/blog/?id=370