“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity."
(George Carlin)
“All wars are fought for money.”
(Socrates)
“In all wars the object is to protect or seize money, property and power, and there will always be wars so long as Capital rules and oppresses people.”
(Ernest Friedrich)
A friend recently posted on social media the question of “just war” in reference to whatever it is that our president and his lackeys are waging against Iran. It is a question and argument that has been debated since Saint Augustine stepped forth declaring the parameters of war for Christians and Christianity. In simplest terms “just war” is a doctrine of military ethics holding that while war is terrible, it can be morally justified if it meets strict, objective criteria—jus ad bellum (right to go to war) and jus in bello (right conduct in war).
The discussion he suggested caught my curiosity. For me the answer was quick and easy—no war is ever “just”. I don’t believe in war in any shape, size, or form. War does not fit into my morals, beliefs, or faith. I understand the struggle against evil and the quandary of addressing it. Both Deitrich Bonhoffer and Thomas Merton were honest in stating their struggles during the Second World War and how they eventually felt violence was the only solution to its end. I understand that and have had my fair share of sleepless nights wrestling with the issue. Still . . . war is wrong. There is no justification for war.
Responses to his inquiry were all over the place . . . from the extreme right and left with everything in between. There was support of the president and his “conflict” with Iran. There was also lots of anger and disagreement with the president’s actions and words . . . especially when he threatened to annihilate a whole culture out of existence. The answers to the question and the discussion quickly devolved into political turf protecting and name-calling.
Despite having received a perceived “theological” degree from a theological seminary—a Master of Divinity, I am in no way an expert on theology. Nor am I an “expert” on “just war”. At the same time, I am a person who believes that people shouldn’t just believe everything they read or see on social media. People need to do the work and do the research. I do. I also form my own opinions based on that research. M. Scott Peck writes in his book, The Road Less Traveled, that “sin is laziness” and taking the easy way out. To avoid that I do my research. There would be less divisiveness in the world if more people did this.
When it comes to “just war”, this is my elementary understanding—right or wrong.
Jus ad Bellum.
Competent Authority. “A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships or deceptive military actions are typically considered as violations of this criterion.” According to our nation’s governing document, the Constitution, it is Congress that holds the power to declare war. It requires a joint resolution from the House of Representatives and the Senate, that once approved must be signed by the president. (Article I, Section 8)
Using this understanding, my first argument would be that no “competent authority” exists in the military aggression against Iran. Certainly, one could argue the competency of the president. Based on the words and actions, the dire state of the nation, and his continued unpresidential and erratic behavior, in my opinion the individual is incompetent. Nor is the Secretary of Defense a competent individual declaring the conflict a “holy war” and inciting made up scriptures out of a popular cult movie, Pulp Fiction. Throw in the Republican controlled Congress who are frightened of the president and do nothing to represent the people who elected them . . . prime example is the presidential derriere kissing Speaker of the House. No “competent authority” has been established for the justification of what is happening in Iran.
The so-called war on Iran is illegal. The president did not ask Congress for a resolution of war. Nor did Congress write and pass a resolution of war. The president has signed nothing. There is no Constitutional follow-through.
Of course, this is politics and the president we are dealing with could use other means to wage war—AUMF. This wonderful acronym stands for Authorization for Use of Military Force. This was created through a joint resolution empowering the president to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Since then, successive administrations have broadened the understanding of this resolution and have fallen back on this to initiate military moves against perceived enemies. The president, the administration, nor the so-called Department of War have attempted to play this card to attack Iran. It is outright aggression . . . illegal aggression.
Probability of Success. The war must be achievable . . . must be able to be won. War should not be initiated if there is no chance of winning. Most experts (civilian and retired military) have stated this is war that is not winnable. They see it as another Viet Nam. The war on Iran is not one that can be clearly won. Though the president boasted victory from day one . . . it has been two months and in an open-ended cease fire . . . and there seems to be no end to this war. Iran refuses to come to the negotiation table. The president knows that nothing short of nuclear annihilation can win this war. He’s even stated it through veiled threats of wiping their culture completely out. This certainly does not display competency by our nation’s most powerful leader.
Last Resort. War cannot be declared or wage until all other non-violent options have been exhausted. Those options include diplomacy, sanctions, and other non-military options. In other words, anything and everything must be attempted before resorting to violence. Once again, outside of veiled threats and sanctions, there were few attempts towards coming to a unified agreement.
Just Cause. The reason for declaring and waging war must be “just”. It cannot be for recapturing things. It cannot be a punishment. There must be a good reason, a legitimate reason, a “just” reason . . . and, so far, there hasn’t been a coherent reason given by the president, administration, or the Department of War. It seems as if the reasons change daily. The over-arching consensus seems to be on destroying the world’s energy (oil) industry to favor the United States, followed by ridding Iran of their nuclear weapon potential, and lastly freeing the people of their government’s regime. Bottom line is that war must be declared to protect life. “Innocent life must be in imminent danger, and intervention must be to protect life.” There is no “just cause” for this aggression.
Jus in Bello.
Distinction. War should be directed towards enemy combatants and not towards non-combatants caught in circumstances that they did not create. It’s military against military. It prohibits bombing civilian residential areas and necessary infrastructures that include no legitimate military targets. This has already been trampled upon in the war as civilian sites were destroyed . . . one being a girl’s school in which 165 female students were killed. Attacks on infrastructure with no military connection—bridges, power plants, and oil refineries—are illegal and unjust. The threat of nuclear annihilation is unjust and purely evil.
Proportionality. Combatants must make sure that the harm caused to civilians or civilian property is not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attach on a legitimate military objective. At this time the war is focused on holding a nation and its people hostage in the bombed-out ruins of our military actions in hope that they will bend to the will of the United States. The suffering far outweighs the purpose.
Military Necessity. The attack must be meant to defeat the enemy—it must be focused and not random acts of violence. The targets must be legitimate military objectives and not schools, hospitals, power plants, and oil refineries. Harm caused must be minimal to the civilian population and not a decimation meant to psychologically destroy the people.
There is no “just war” being wages against Iran. There is no “holy war”. The president, administration, Department of War, and Congress have followed none of the laws of our nation or the constitutional mandates for war. The war has not met any of the random reasons given for it. The world has not endorsed this aggression. The result has been a global shake-up economically and creating a fuel crisis. In the United States it has created hardships the president asks the citizens to embrace and endure for the sake of a war no one wanted or has endorsed.
This is not justifiable war. No war is. In the end the only ones who benefit will be those in power . . . primarily the president, his family, and all of his rich cronies. You won’t benefit. I won’t benefit.
There is no “just war” being waged against Iran.
“Someday they’ll give a war and nobody will come.”
(Carl Sandburg)
