The 'just war' test: U.S. actions in Iraq fail to qualify ...

[nosmokes]

original

The 'just war' test: U.S. actions in Iraq fail to qualify as the lesser of evils

By Thomas Dodd
For The Register-Guard
Published: Sunday, January 22, 2006


Should the United States and its allies have invaded Iraq? Should the occupation continue? What standards exist for making such decisions? Citizens are asking these and other questions as the third anniversary of the war approaches.
Historically, there have been different systems for evaluating war. One is called "war realism." This view holds that war is nothing more or less than a tool of the state. If the country wins, war was a good tool. Questions of morality are here largely neglected.
Another system is "holy war." This is the understanding that God, however understood, wills the war. In this approach, obedience is the response - and mercilessness is often the result.
Another position is pacifism. This stand holds that all war is immoral and is to be resisted.
A final approach is known as the "just war" tradition, which believes that while war is evil, it can be the lesser of evils. As such, given certain circumstances, people of conscience can participate in war. This system was developed more than 1,000 years ago by Christian thinkers in Europe and has since been embraced by most churches and most Western nations.
The just war tradition defines a war as justified under specific conditions or when it conforms to certain rules. When I examine the Iraq war in light of these conditions, I conclude that it cannot be described as a just war. But I encourage readers to make their own comparisons between the Iraq war and the rules that define a just war, and draw their own conclusions.
~snip~
.
.
.
Thomas Dodd is Pastor of United Luteran Church in Eugene
--###--
complete articlehere