Debating ‘just war’ 60 years after Hiroshima

A version of this article appeared in the July 29 edition of the Pittsburgh Catholic.

Sixty years ago this August 6, an American bomber nicknamed the Enola Gay dropped the first atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. In bringing an end to the Second World War, atomic weapons forever changed how we think about war and peace.

September 11, 2001 was also a watershed moment. With the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the United States encountered a foe that didn’t flinch from killing civilians and used hatred as a rationale for such killing. That morning, Americans awoke to new kind of war.

The years since have seen American troops fighting and dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, and American Catholics, along with Christians and non-Christians the world over, have thought deeply and argued passionately about national security and the appropriateness of fighting wars in a modern age.

The debate isn’t over, nor should it be. But the Catholic just war tradition can offer a starting point for the road ahead.

Talking about war
In the millennium and a half since Saint Augustine started thinking about the Christian response to war, Christians have debated how, if ever, war could be just. More recently, thinkers of other traditions and perspectives have joined the “just war” tradition, resulting in an incredibly complex mix of positions.

Some thinkers on war, particularly since Hiroshima, believe that war is so intrinsically bad that no argument or situation can ever justify it. This perspective, called “pacifism,” advocates non-violent means of conflict resolution.

At the other end of the spectrum, “realists” see war as a part of the human condition. In a world of rogue states and lawlessness, realists emphasize power and pragmatism in dealing with threats. They reject pacifism as ineffective, and they may also tend to see the rights of others as irrelevant to a state’s need to protect itself.

The just war tradition strikes a delicate balance between pacifism and realism, and this balance is reflected in church teaching. “Respect for and development of human life require peace,” the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, but “peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries” (2304).

Like pacifists, Christians working from just war theory pursue peace, but like realists, they also understand that they shouldn’t seek peace at any price. Just as there can be unjust wars, where states aggressively destroy their neighbors, there can also be unjust peaces, where a state stands by as innocent lives are destroyed.

Just war theory believes that peace requires Christians to work and struggle for justice, and it offers guidance in that struggle.

What makes a just war?Just war theory is based in prudence, or the virtue of thinking practically in the light of faith and reason. Instead of taking a blanket, yes-or-no approach to war, just war theory works by giving a series of conditions nations must meet before, during and after hostilities.

By using conditions and principles, just war theory helps Christians evaluate the real conditions in front of them and make practical decisions that have the best chance of protecting the common good.

Christians using just war principles can come to support some conflicts but not others. For instance, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believed that the United States’ involvement in Afghanistan was justifiable but has strongly questioned the war in Iraq.

Though Christians of goodwill may disagree about how just war principles should be applied in a given case, just war theory provides a practical, yet faithful framework for understanding war.

Because just war theory believes that war should be avoided, the criteria for breaking the peace are rigorous and complex. Though the exact number of requirements can vary depending on the framework used, a nation typically has to meet six conditions.

The cause must be just. Just wars must have legitimate reasons, such as self-defense or protection of the innocent.

The nation must have the right intent. Just wars must be fought to keep the peace and further legitimate ends.

The nation declaring war must do so with proper authority. Just wars must be declared by governments that have the legitimate support of the people.

War must be the last resort. Just wars can occur only when every other avenue has failed.

The war must have some probability of succeeding. Just wars must have clear objectives that are attainable and understood at the outset.

The war must not make matters worse. Just wars must have real benefits that outweigh the costs in casualties and human suffering violence causes.

During war, warring nations must meet other requirements. They must be able to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, and they must respond proportionately to their enemy. Once hostilities have ended, the only acceptable peace is a just peace, and warring nations should also provide humanitarian and other assistance to deal with the effects of violence.

At least, that’s what the ideal just war looks like on paper. Nevertheless, even nations that meet the tests of just war can find themselves in situations that push the boundaries.

New world, new realities
Beginning with the First World War, the realities of modern war have tested the limits of just war theory. Poison gas, biological warfare, nuclear weapons, “asymmetrical” guerilla wars and rising civilian death tolls have each, in their own way, challenged just war theory’s neat categories.

For many, the war on terrorism throws the categories of just war out the window or at least requires major revisions to the theory. The reasons behind their positions, however, vary depending on their political outlook.

Some Catholics will modify just war theory to defend a thoroughly pragmatic approach to the war on terror. Terrorists don’t play by just war’s rules, they argue, and adhering too strongly to the traditional just war principles is simply too dangerous for national security.

Others, pointing to John Paul II’s repeated denunciations of war, also tend to reject just war theory, but for opposite reasons. Citing the “culture of life” and the indiscriminate terror of modern war, they argue that pacifism, or at least an extremely stringent approach to just war, is the only legitimate Christian course.

As always, just war theory offers a middle road. But in the new war on terror, the road isn’t always clear.

Preemptive wars, like the current conflict in Iraq, are an outstanding question. Though it may seem necessary, what are the conditions that make preemptive war just? Even if a nation’s initial intentions are good, do good intentions outweigh the suffering war causes if the military intelligence is wrong? What if a preemptive war makes things worse?

Legitimate authority is another issue. Though the Catechism leaves the evaluation of a war’s justice “to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good” (2309), does it then give the government a “blank check” to pursue whatever course it deems necessary? What is the role of public opinion, or even international opinion, in recognizing a war’s legitimacy?

Catholic thinkers and others continue to wrestle with these and similar questions to craft a theory of just war that meets the post-September 11 reality.

“In this debate, the middle may turn out to be the cutting edge,” Jesuit Fr. Drew Christiansen, the editor of the Jesuit magazine America, has observed. “It is there we find people wrestling with the complexities of church teaching, rather than simply overthrowing the tradition or using theology to bless war as an instrument of policy.”