A Just War?

As I write this our national leaders are debating armed intervention in the ongoing civil war in Syria, a conflict that has already produced vast numbers of civilian casualties and most recently has seen the use of chemical weapons that killed an additional 1,500 people.  The debate that now rages nationally brings with it the underlying question, when, if ever, is war justified?  Most, but not all, Christians understand that under certain circumstances war is justified.  It should be equally clear that as believers we should not just make the blanket assumption that because our country is contemplating war that it is just.  Assuming that there are occasions when war is justified, how do we objectively evaluate a scenario so that we aren't assuming that it's just simply because our country or our favorite president is undertaking it?

The ethics of war and peace are never easy, because even a war that may be considered just can result in hundreds of thousands or millions of deaths and one could rightly ask, "what in heaven's name is ethical about that?"  Within the Christian tradition there is a long-standing view that war is never justified.  Termed pacifism, this position simply holds that under no circumstances should a nation resort to warfare.  Though I respect those who are committed to this position with intellectual honesty, I cannot agree with them in good conscience.

Another view of war and peace may be called realism.  This is simply assessing a situation not so much from an ethical perspective, but from a national interest perspective. This is the arena in which many national leaders operate.  We go to war because our vital national interests are at stake and the objectives cannot be met by peaceful means.  The famous German military leader Carl von Clausewitz of the late 1700's and early 1800's famously wrote that "war is the continuation of policy by other means."  This is essentially the position of the realist.  Nations have vital interests and objectives.  It is preferable to obtain and maintain them peacefully, but if that isn't possible then those same interests will be carried out by force of arms.

There is, however, another way of viewing the ethics of peace and war within the Christian tradition.  As Christians we ought always to promote peace, and even when war is waged it should be only for the purpose of restoring a just peace that has been broken.  The philosophy behind this is known as "just war theory" or "just war tradition."  The origins of just war theory go back to St. Augustine in the 4th and 5th century A.D., though it has been refined considerably since then.  This tradition is not without its logical inconsistencies and flaws, but it is still a helpful tool.  I'm not going to presume to tell you whether or not you should support our military intervention into the Syrian conflict, only to give you some criteria that may be helpful.

Elements of the just war theory apply to the cause of war, the conduct of it, and to the resulting peace.

• Regarding the decision to go to war, the causes, it is generally held that: self defense from attack, defense of others from aggression, defense of noncombatants from brutal aggression are legitimate causes for war.  In my opinion by these standards our entry into World War II, First Gulf War, and Afghanistan following 9/11 could be termed just.  Though just war decries aggressive use of force, the tradition is split on the use of force to deter or prevent an imminent devastating attack.  
• War should not be waged in order to gain territory.  
• War should be initiated by the state's proper authority and announced.  
• War should be undertaken only after diplomatic means have been exhausted or shown to have no reasonable chance for success.
• War should only be waged if there is a reasonable chance of success.  This prevents great, senseless loss of life in a lost cause.

Elements of the theory also apply to how war is waged.  A war can be initiated for just reasons, but then be carried out by unjust means.  Much of this is now codified in international laws such as the famous Geneva Conventions.

• Non-combatants should not targeted and reasonable means must be taken to prevent loss of life among non-combatants.  It is assumed that in any conflict innocent civilians will lose their lives accidentally, but for a war to be just they cannot be targeted.  In my opinion, by this standard Sherman's march in the South late in the Civil War and the U.S. firebombing of Tokyo late in World War II would be questionable.
• The means must be proportional.  Not all actions in war are just even if the cause is.  For example, U.S. entry into the First Gulf War was justified in my opinion.  That would not have given the U.S. justification to indiscriminately flatten Baghdad, much less use nuclear weapons in that conflict because such means would not have been necessary to secure a lasting and just peace.
• There must be benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war.  Prisoners should be kept in safety and away from combat areas until they are exchanged or until the conflict is over.  They should not be targets for rape, starvation, torture, medical experimentation, etc.  

If the use of force is undertaken as a means of restoring a just peace, then the peace itself must be one that is just.

• The peace should secure those basic rights the violation of which provoked the conflict in the first place.
• The peace should be measured and reasonable.
• The peace should distinguish between the civilian populace and a nation's leadership so that the populace isn't subject to unreasonable post-war measures such as post-war economic sanctions that cripple a civilian populace.  By this standard even if World War I were justified under this philosophy, the peace the allies imposed was not a just one because it created such civilian hardship in Germany that it laid the seeds for a second, even greater conflict.

Personally, I admit to being greatly conflicted about the conflict in Syria.  Speaking as a realist, a student of history, I can't help but have pause about this.  We are still at war in Afghanistan after more than ten years, have been reducing our military budget in recent years so that our armed services are stretched thin as it is with maintenance on equipment being deferred because of budgetary constraints.  Many people are serving multiple tours of duty over there with the subsequent psychological and emotional problems for both soldier and family.  However, my calling and primary identity is as a minister of the Gospel, a follower of the Prince of Peace.  I ask therefore, have we exhausted diplomatic means for solving the conflict?  Is there a reasonable chance for success, or will our intervention create a problem worse than the current bloody civil war?  This is relevant because among the groups fighting the Syrian government is Al Quaeda, the terrorist organization responsible for many attacks on Americans and westerners including the 9/11 highjackings.  I haven't answered those to my own satisfaction yet, much less enough to suggest how another should think.  Pray for our national leaders as they wrestle with this, pray for peace to prevail in Syria and also Egypt which is caught up in violence.  Pray that "the kingdom of this world will become the Kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ." (Rev. 11:15).  We live in a world where armies and navies are necessary facts of life, let's pray for the day when they aren't.  If you want to read further on this I would recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on this topic at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/.