War against Saddam may be 'just war'

Sydney
16 February 2003

'Cash for babies' instead of abortion

People 'outraged' at war talk

Tough nights for priest after crash

Abraham seen as symbol of hope and a bond of unity

Cardinal in Church 'top 10'

Catholic social justice, welfare groups issue NSW election kit

Chinese New Year revels will aid bushfire victims

New role in archdiocese

Charity, sacrifice essential to Christian life, says Pope in Lenten Message

Catholic Club helps fund suburban play area for littlies

World Day of the Sick - 'Defend life', Pope urges health workers

Care of elderly needs overhaul

Editorial: 'Just war' debate

Letters: Sir Alan Walker

Conversation: Dr Catherine Foley - research scientist, mother and volunteer - Going out there 'and making a difference'

... in the footsteps of Abraham

Archive on Nazis won't hurt Pius XII

War against Saddam may be 'just war'

'Powerful celebration' of the Church

Cardinals' coats (of arms) of many colours

War against Saddam may be 'just war'

Iraqi contrasts: The riches of oil and an Iraqi family with its monthly food ration

By John Owens

It was with interest that I read Gary Stone's article (Face Saddam, but in a 'just' cause only, CW 2/2). Having known and respected Gary for over 15 years - and being, like him, a committed Catholic and former Army Officer - I knew his thoughts would be sincere, prayerful and powerfully expressed. I deeply respect Gary's life of service to God and his nation - first as an infantry officer who was a powerful example to young men like me, and later as a chaplain who has ministered God's word to the men and women of our Defence Force.

But I must disagree with his reading of the possible campaign against Iraq and his contention that such operations would not meet the criteria of 'Just War'. On the contrary, my conscientious belief is that a possible war against Saddam is justified, and that a Catholic serviceman or servicewoman called upon to participate in it could do so in good conscience.

Some people contend that war is never justified. But it seems to me - as well as to Gary - that such a position is an extreme one, and would require its holder to believe that nothing is worth fighting for, not even (say) the defeat of Nazi Germany. Moreover, it is traditionally not the position of the Church, as both St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas believed that war was justifiable under certain conditions - beliefs, as Gary points out, that have been codified by the Church.

So if one believes that some wars are justified - such as World War II - then the burden of proof is to show that an anti-Iraq war would fall into that category. It is perhaps worth recalling that the current situation is a direct result of the 1990-91 Gulf War (a war Gary acknowledges as meeting the Just War criteria) when Iraq invaded, occupied and despoiled Kuwait, inflicting significant casualties (and torture) on its people and major damage to its infrastructure. This invasion was unprovoked and without genuine cause. As a result of the invasion, and Iraq's refusal to withdraw from Kuwait, a UN-sponsored coalition defeated the Iraqi army in Kuwait. The coalition did not invade Iraq, nor call on Iraq's unconditional surrender, nor were any Iraqis tried for war crimes, including the crime of launching an aggressive war. However, the UN did introduce a number of restrictions, including the banning of certain weapons systems, and imposed sanctions until it could be demonstrated by inspection that Iraq had abided by the terms of the settlement and met the conditions of the restrictions. It should be emphasised that Iraq agreed to these conditions as part of the settlement.

But Iraq has signally failed to meet these obligations; the current round of action is intended to ensure that they are met. In many ways, it is the unfinished business of the 1991 war - and it strikes me as somewhat curious that one could hold the 1991 war to be just, yet not hold as just any further action taken to compel compliance with the terms of its settlement. Saddam could have had these restrictions (and sanctions) lifted at any time by meeting the obligations to which he agreed.

Turning to the Just War criteria, I will use a slightly different set to the ones outlined by Gary - although these include the ones he enumerated.

The first criterion often cited is that those resorting to arms must have just cause. In this case, the cause is the disarming of Iraq, and perhaps by extension, the removal of the Saddam regime. Both causes seem prima facie just. Iraq is being disarmed because it demonstrated by its invasion of Kuwait (as well as Iran) that it is not a reasonable member of the international community and cannot be trusted with certain types of weapons. As for the removal of Saddam, it cannot be denied that his regime is one of the most loathsome around. He runs a police state, dominated by his overweening ego, where torture and intimidation are a routine part of life. He has directly and indirectly inflicted enormous suffering on his own people, as well as the people of Iran and Kuwait. If he were to be removed it would without question be in the best interests of the Iraqi people, just as the removal of the Taliban has been in the interests of the people of Afghanistan.

Proper authority

This part of the just war tradition restricts the waging of war to legitimate authorities. In this case, the authority is the UN Security Council, and its 18 Chapter VII binding resolutions on Iraq, including the most recent, the unanimously-carried resolution 1441. Iraq is in breach of all of these resolutions. I note that on the day I write there are greater indications that a 19th resolution will be forthcoming.

Last resort

This condition is designed to ensure that war is not entered into lightly. Saddam has had 12 years to live up to his (agreed) obligations and has shown very little inclination to do so. The international community has tried everything it reasonably could - trade and economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, limited military action and an inspection regime - but, as Hans Blix reported to the UN, Iraq has failed even to try to meet its obligations.

There are those who say he should be given more time but, after 12 years, how much is enough? Military action - regrettable though it would be - with the aim of forcing Iraqi compliance and, if necessary, removing Saddam, seems to me the only resort left to the international community.

Reasonable prospect of victory

This condition is included to avoid legitimising hopeless causes which inflict suffering with no prospect of success. The case of Iraq meets this criterion. The Iraqi armed forces could not withstand a coalition attack and, if the example of the 1991 war holds, would surrender quickly, reducing casualties and damage.

Proportionality

This condition points to a need for the good to be done to outweigh the evil inflicted by the war. As in the previous condition, the military superiority of the coalition points to a short war with a minimum (relatively speaking) loss of life. It is also likely that most civilian casualties would be the direct result of Saddam deliberately putting people in harm's way (as human shields, or putting military facilities in civilian buildings). Modern allied warfighting techniques, as

Gary points out in his reference to the Australian Army's Manual of Land Warfare, stress the need to minimise civilian casualties, and these responsibilities are taken seriously indeed. As the Allies showed in their reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II, modern democratic states can be built from the ashes of dictatorships. Gary speaks of the need to address the "root problems of justice in economic, social and political terms", a sentiment with which I agree - but I submit that this will not occur under the staggeringly totalitarian regime of Saddam Hussein. For the Iraqi people to have economic, social and political justice, Saddam has to go.

So, according to these 'tests', anti-Saddam operations would fall into the category of wars considered just, in my view. Again, it is worth emphasising that all of this is a direct result of Saddam Hussein's own choices and actions and that he can avoid war and all the other measures being applied to him by conscientiously meeting the (comparatively generous) terms of settlement to which he agreed after his murderous invasion of Kuwait.

War against Iraq would be a terrible thing. Please God it can still be averted. But, as St Augustine indicated in The City of God (Book XIX), war can be terrible and stillbe justified; World War II

is proof of that contention. The international community needs to show that the actions of Saddam's Iraq - and its consistent refusal to meet its obligations in any sphere of activity - will not be tolerated.

The world has shown patience and tolerance for 12 years and given Saddam every opportunity to reform and end the suffering of his people. War can be averted, but that is a decision only Saddam Hussein can take.

We might pray that the Holy Spirit leads him to take it.

John Owens is a former army officer. These are his personal views.