March 2, 2003
JUST, DO IT:
Will It Be a 'Just War' or Just a War?: Centuries-old guidelines can help societies curb the savagery of mass conflict. (Jean Bethke Elshtain, February 19, 2003, LA Times)President Bush has said that if it comes to war in Iraq, America will fight in a "just cause" and by "just means."This is no mere rhetorical flourish. The president's use of the language of justice links the Iraq crisis to a venerable tradition of ethical restraint and justification known as "just war."
Determining what constitutes a just war originated with such great fathers of the Christian church as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, who sought to come to grips with the responsibilities of governments in a fallen world. Stretching the boundary of moral concern beyond family, tribe and territory, they created specific injunctions about the use of force aimed at limiting both the occasions for war and the means by which it was carried out.
Since then, many of these injunctions have been encoded in international agreements and conventions stipulating what is and is not acceptable in fighting between nations.
The just-war tradition insists that a war must be openly and legally fought; it must be a response to a specific instance of unjust aggression or to the certain threat of such aggression; it must be a last resort, meaning that all other avenues have been considered; and there must be a strong probability of success.
The Pope is whiffing on this one.
MORE:
Ethicist Argues Bush Has Moral Case for Iraq War (Karen R. Long, February 19, 2003,
Religion News Service)
French and German opinion leaders depict George W. Bush as a Texas cowboy running roughshod on the world stage. Nelson Mandela of South Africa mocks the American president's intelligence.Posted by Orrin Judd at March 2, 2003 6:37 AMBut Jean Bethke Elshtain, a leading political ethicist, believes Bush can make a compelling moral case for starting a war against Iraq.
"Not going to war can be a tragedy, just as going to war can be a tragedy," Elshtain said here recently, noting the dithering in Bosnia and the inaction in Rwanda. "I think the president is striking the right tone."
Name me the last time a pope had anything
decent or useful to say about any conflict
anywhere. I don't think it has happened in
2,000 years.
Harry:
What he has to say is useful--he's an absolutist for life. He just happens to be wrong about whether war is justified to depose Saddam.
Harry-
This pope was a significant factor in freeing eastern Europe.
Though not via war--perhaps he's satisfied with the way the Cold War went.
Posted by: oj at March 2, 2003 9:16 PMSo he was. This is a different issue.
But if it was OK for Pacelli to keep quiet on the great moral issue of his time, why can't we get as much discretion from the current incumbent?
Be very careful. The "just war" concept is potentially ad odd with the Western way of war, as practiced by the United States, and may become a prescription for incrementalism and body-count swapping. If a war is worth fighting at all, it is worth fighting quickly.
Posted by: Lou Gots at March 3, 2003 8:50 PMHarry:
what world leader was vocal on it?
Lou - have no fear - just war theory argues for whatever tactics in war are prudent - if quick and decisive victory is best, just war supports it.
Harry - I too wish the Pope were speaking more prudently on the war (i.e. supporting it) - but he's right to speak out for the Catholic ethical viewpoint. Pacelli had to be discreet in his denunciation of the Nazis because they had a record of retaliation against critics. The current pope has no similar prudential reasons for silence.
How heroic. I think I prefer the Lincoln Brigades.
In 1914, Grey commented that the "lamps were going out all across Europe." Except in Vatican city, where the pope had extinguished them in 1849.
I don't believe anyone not raised a Catholic can truly despise the religion to the degree it deserves.