We tangled with this and the question of the killing of Osama Bin Laden in adult Sunday School this morning–KSH
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.
The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
If I am reading Rome’s criteria properly, a moral nation must delay any military action until AFTER a threat nation has inflicted lasting and grave damage; and also until after all non-military means have been shown to be ineffective.
Do I understand this to mean then that Neville Chamberlain gave the only proper response to Hitler (wait until he finally struck, attempt diplomatic solutions up until that final hour)?
Also does the Catechism condemn NATO’s “first use” policy of nuclear weapons during the cold war? (Russia promised never to use them first — NATO specifically threatened that it might use them first.) Most military historians are in general agreement that NATO’s threat of first-use nuclear assault prevented Soviet invasion of Western Europe.
It’s very possible that I have misread the Catechism’s criteria — anyone know this better?
I’m not a cannon lawyer or theologian, but it sounds like your argument hangs on whether you interpret the past tense in “The damage inflicted by…” as being prescriptive. Looking at the source for the catholic position on just war, Aquinas merely requires “…hose who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault”. I’m inclined to consider a plausible threat as such a fault – but I’d like to hear more learned authorities argue this one.
On closer examination, it seems reasonable enough.
I would have thought that it amply justifies the killing of Bin Laden (and the numerous previous killings of his lieutenants, which are no different).
Al Qaeda would have carried out another September 11 if they could. The best means of stopping that is to kill their leaders.
ALL of them!
The problem here, as has been amply recognized, is defining war: Can it include operations against a group of people that is not a nation-state, groups such as Al Qaeda? We use the term “war” to describe our actions against terrorism, but that seems more a metaphor than a true description. Nonetheless, given the reality of terrorism, maybe the traditional Christian just-war criteria are soundly applied in this context. Let us assume it is. Christian analysis requires justice in going to war, conducting the war, and ending the war. This means, if the idea of just war means anything at all, there will be some means of conducting war that Christians simply cannot use no matter what the consequences, even were the very existence of the nation state threatened. I fear that the USA has overstepped those boundaries of justice–targeted assassination (bring bin Laden back dead!) or the use of drones to blow up the enemy while they are sleeping in their civilian homes surrounded by their families–and the Christian community has said little to nothing, except maybe the far-left pacificists. Total war is not Christian, nor is it just. I have a Mennonite friend who complains that no war involving the United States has been found to be unjust under just-war theory. The moral of his complaint is that we should not confuse nationalism for Christianity.
These are good comments. I especially like and agree with the last sentence of #5.
Our class discussion was excellent, and the consensus seemed to be that 1 and 4 as criteria were met, but it was on 2 and 3 that there were potential problems. In addition to these considerations there are also matters of international law. The biggest problem is there is a lot we do not know because we are meant not to know.
Therefore whatever judgement we make needs to be provisional.
Anglicanconvert,
Does the Catholic Catechism refer to “war” as the defining criterion?
Whatever, international conventions generally do not. The Geneva Conventions for instance apply to “armed conflict”. It always surprises me that many people are concerned about whether a nation has “declared war”, when that has never been a relevant issue.
To put it another way: what Al Qaeda did on September 11 would clearly have been an “act of war” if done by another nation -several huge buildings destroyed, several thousand people killed, airline security totally disrupted etc. Yet some people imagine that the right of the US to defend itself against such an attack with armed force is somehow affected because it wasn’t carried out by a nation. I would challenge such people to really sit down and think hard about the justification for that idea (because they won’t find one).
Yes, the USA is entitled to shoot at people who attack it. I know that’s hard for some to contemplate, but it is the harsh truth. Yes, there are all sorts of riders and hedges on that right (and using proportionate force, and avoiding civilian casualties are indeed some of them) but they apply regardless of whether or not there is a state of “war”. There was clearly a state of “armed conflict”.
[blockquote] I fear that the USA has overstepped those boundaries of justice—targeted assassination (bring bin Laden back dead!) [/blockquote]
It depends on what you mean. If a state of conflict exists, yes you can aim to kill enemy leaders. An example I’ve brought up before: in 1942 the British SOE sent two agents with the specific mission of killing a high ranking Nazi leader. They may well have sent other such missions also, but this one is well known because it succeeded. No-one has ever suggested that the British “overstepped the boundaries of justice” by detonating an anti-tank mine on Reinhard Heydrich’s car. You CAN go after someone in an attempt to kill them.
[blockquote] “or the use of drones to blow up the enemy while they are sleeping in their civilian homes surrounded by their families”
[/blockquote]
This conflates two issues. A drone is no different to any other weapon, smart or dumb. All armed forces are under a legal and ethical obligation to minimise civilian casualties to the maximum extent possible, and to only use force proportional to the means. That doesn’t mean that use of drones is wrong, nor does the occurrence of civilian deaths necessarily mean that the wrong procedure has been followed. But I agree, in some circumstances it might.
[blockquote] “This means, if the idea of just war means anything at all, there will be some means of conducting war that Christians simply cannot use no matter what the consequences, even were the very existence of the nation state threatened.” [/blockquote]
Good point. So why are you trying to draw the line here, given that the killing of OBL seems to have been well inside the line of what is considered reasonable use of force? Consider:
Al Qaida committed an act of war on the United States. It threatened to carry out more. Osama Bin Laden was living in hiding. The US sent a team to break into his compound and kill him. They in fact killed the four or five males in the compound and spared the women and children (with the exception of one woman who was shot) – given the situation, they could have been excused if they hadn’t been able to make the distinction in the confusion. There is no indication in all the confused reporting that OBL or anyone else tried to surrender.
Where is the problem with this particular operation?
Sorry, I had not read Canon Harmon’s comment. I agree that any judgment has to be provisional, given that there probably are things that we do not know about this. Mind you, that cuts both ways.
MA, I am not sure what to make of you comment on “‘war’ as the defining criterion.” We are talking about “just war” theory!!! However, more seriously, I may not disagree with you on these points. I probably would take as a little more important the distinction between war and, for example, a criminal prosecution. Take for example, we would not consider as an act of war a conspiracy to assassinate a President, which would be an act of aggression against the political community, what some people may call “an act of war.” Nonetheless, calling it an act of war would not change the reality. One of the defining differences between war and crime is the need for due process, and within the context of Catholic moral thought any way, that capital punishment is forbidden as retribution. How that latter principle applies in a war situation, I am not sure. That warrants some reflection. Concerning your point on drones as a weapon, I did not intend to distinguish drones as a weapon from others, except maybe nuclear weapons. The issue is not the type of weapon, but the context in which it is used: targeting civilian households just because we can and because no one is going to care about the children or women killed because they are . . . . Muslim children or women? Finally, I don’t have as much of a problem with this operation as a problem with how the war in Afghanistan has evolved into a drone-into-Pakistan war. But obviously, we can make only provisional judgments because we lack information. My understanding is that Just-War theory grew out of the christianizing of the Roman empire and the need to think theologically about the ethics of Jesus in a political context; hence, e.g. the prohibition on offensive war. I just don’t want to entirely prudentially about these matters and lose trying to think Christianly about them.
Opps, I left out a word in the last sentence. It should read: “I just don’t want to think entirely prudentially about these matters and lose trying to think Christianly about them.”
AC,
Good points.