[Question:]{.underline} Could a U.S. attack on Iraq be considered a just war?
[Answer:]{.underline} This question is sometimes simplified to the question of whether we condone or condemn the actions of Saddam Hassein. However, this is not the essential question here, even if the legitimacy of his authority were to be questioned.
The morality and conditions for a just war were very well explained by Father Iscara in his erudite article in the July 2002 issue of the Angelus (pp. 2- 16), inspiring himself from Saint Thomas Aquinas (IIa IIae, 40, 1). He there points out that the application of these principles to determine the morality of a particular conflict can be very difficult, given the complexity of actual situations (p.11).
The first condition for a war to be just is that it is declared by a lawful or legitimate authority. It is certainly true that the US Congress has the authority to declare a war for the self-defense of US territory or citizens. It is also certain that its concern for the common good of the US also means that it must have some concern for the common good of the globe as a whole, given the mutual interdependence of nations. However, it does not at all have the authority to act as an international police man, for the international common good is not its responsibility. For it to do so would be to attack the sovereignty of other nations. No nation has the right to declare war on another nation that is not a threat to it. Furthermore, a body of nations cannot make have the authority to make such a declaration of war, since it has no sovereignty. It is true, however, that the people can rebel against an unjust ruler who has lost his right to rule, and appeal for foreign aid. This does not appear to be the case in Iraq, with the exception of exiled liberal dissidents. The US would have the moral right to declare war on Iraq only if Iraq posed a real threat to US security (or to that orf US allies). This has not at all been demonstrated. The existence of weapons of Mass destruction or Iraq’s ability to use them has not been demonstrated, nor has the use of Iraq as a base for terrorism.
The second condition for a just war is that there must be a just cause, such as defense against an unjust attack or recuperation of what has been unjustly taken. A presumed, imaginary or even possible problem of terrorist bases or the existence of weapons of Mass destruction could not constitute a just cause. Another aspect of the just cause is that it must be proportionate to the evil, death, destruction and human suffering that could be caused by the war. Since modern wars are indiscriminate and attack civilians just as much as military personnel, it cannot be conceived that a war of this kind could be successful without a great deal of suffering for the citizens of Iraq. There is a manifest lack of proportionality here that makes any reasonable person wonder what the real underlying reason for such a proposed war or invasion could be. If it were, for example, U.S. self-interest by guaranteeing the supply of oil, then it would be manifestly unjust. Here it is also to be mentioned that a war is only just if there is a good chance of a rapid successful victory with a minimum of casualties. The specter of Vietnam makes one wonder if this really is the case.
The third condition described by St. Thomas for a just war is a right intention, and this in the objective domain, namely that it be truly the reestablishment of justice which is aimed at. However, this is not at all the case. Iraq has done no injustice to the U.S. The absence of a right intention is also manifest by the fact the U.S. is not insisting that Israel live up to UN demands as it is with Iraq. To the contrary, the embargo against Iraq has caused the death of many children, estimated by some as many as one million. In this regard, a war can only be just if all other avenues of resolution have been exhausted. This does not at all appear to be the case, which is why other nations, that do not stand to gain as much, are not interested in participating.
Consequently, the proposed war on Iraq is not morally licit. This does not mean, however, that American serviceman could not fight in such a conflict, even if they were aware that it is not based on moral principles. It is their duty to defend their country, and once a war were declared it would be necessary for them to do so. It is rather strange that it is the Arab country that has been most tolerant towards its relatively large Chaldean Christian minority which is being threatened in this way. One hopes that it will not be a repeat of Kosovo, in which the NATO invasion brought as a consequence the destruction of over 100 monasteries and churches, most of which had survived 500 years of Moslem rule.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.