Catholic Wisdom on Iran and Iraq (by Jim Wallis)
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is holding its annual meeting this week. They have elected a new president, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago, and will vote on their teaching document for the 2008 election. Two other actions are worth noting.
The bishops approved a letter from their International Committee to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging a diplomatic solution with Iran.
Recent news accounts speculating on the possible use of force against Iran are especially troubling. From a moral perspective, in the absence of an immediate threat against the United States or our allies, military action would constitute an act of preventive war. The Catholic Church teaches: "[E]ngaging in a preventive war without clear proof that an attack is imminent cannot fail to raise serious moral and juridical questions." … The use of force must always be a last resort. In addition, the failure to be transparent about one's nuclear energy program is not grounds for military intervention, nor is the possession of nuclear weapons or the issuing of bellicose statements.
The bishops also approved a statement on a responsible transition in Iraq. They noted that the concerns they had expressed about the war before it began must "now give way to new moral questions."
Our country needs a new direction to reduce the war's deadly toll and to bring our people together to deal with the conflict's moral and human dimensions. Our nation needs a new bipartisan approach to Iraq policy based on honest and civil dialogue.
Our Conference encourages our national leaders to focus on the morally and politically demanding, but carefully limited goal of fostering a "responsible transition" and withdrawal at the earliest opportunity consistent with that goal. The moral demands of this path begin with addressing the humanitarian crisis in Iraq and minimizing further loss of human life.
And, they pointed out that
Catholic teaching has long held that peace is more than the absence of war; it is built on the foundation of justice. This moral insight means that building a just peace in Iraq requires far more than military action; it demands a comprehensive political, diplomatic and economic effort. This effort begins in Iraq, but it does not end there. For this reason, we believe sustained U.S. efforts to collaborate with the other nations, including Syria and Iran, are critically important for bringing some measure of stability to Iraq.
Both statements are in the best tradition of Catholic social teaching and are worth studying. A responsible U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and diplomacy over war with Iran would provide the opportunity for a more stable and peaceful solution to both issues.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
I am all for withdrawing . Diplomacy with Iran , better then no dipolacy that is for sure .
Does seem as if things are getting better in Iraq , I pray that is so . The casualities are down , I have heard people are even moving back to where at one time it was considered un safe .
This is good !
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 14, 2007 5:01 PM
This as opposed to those who want a non-diplomatic solution with Iran and do not want to lower the death toll in Iraq. What a crock!
Posted by: Bradley | November 14, 2007 5:27 PM
Bradley,
Everyone wants a lower death toll in Iraq and a diplomatic solution in Iran. The question is whether people are willing to work for it. And, how much people will insist of the leaders when their leaders say it is time to go to war.
Christians in America failed to point out the immorality of rushing to war. We have to accept responsibility for that, and do all we can to prevent it from happening again.
Posted by: JimII | November 14, 2007 11:57 PM
GET OUT OF THEIR COUNTRY AND HELP OUR OWN PEOPLE AND BUILD UP AMERICA -- FOR WE THE PEOPLE , FOR THE PEOPLE , BY THE PEOPLE , AND GIVE BACK TO ALL OUR VETS . HELP USA SOIL , HELP THE HOMELESS , HELP THE WELFARE, OUR SYSTEM IS GOING DOWN THE DRAIN AND THE GOV'T IS BLINDED AN DEAF TO AMERICA'S NEEDS NOT OTHER COUNTRYS , PLEASE REFORM AND REMEMBER YOUR ROOTS AND ALL WHO FOUGHT TO KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE
Posted by: John Lavine | November 15, 2007 12:44 AM
C.P.S. HAS KIDNAPPED MY KIDS AND SOLD THEM TO MAKE MONEY AND I LIVE EVERY DAY LOOKING FOR HELP AND THE GOV'T SYSTEM IS AFRAID TO ADMIT TO THERE FAULTS AND TWO OF MY KIDS HAVE BEEN TERMINATED AND STILL NO ONE IN CALIFORNIA WILL HELP ME TO FIND THE TRUTH OF ALL THIS AND LAWSUIT INDIVIDUALLY BUT NO SUCH LUCK , PLEASE HELP , ANY SUGGESTIONS??
Posted by: BRADETTE HARTMAN | November 15, 2007 12:52 AM
Bradette,
You are experiencing the "parents have no rights" side of the progressive Democrats. I'll pray for you. In California, it's all we have left as parents. Your first concern is falling on deaf GOP ears.
Posted by: Donny | November 15, 2007 6:25 AM
JimII,
When you speak of the "immorality of rushing to war" do you mean the more than a decade that Iraq violated the terms of the cease fire of the first Gulf War? Or do you mean the 14 U.N. Resolutions which went ignored by Iraq? Are you speaking of Bill Clinton's and John Kerry's speeches to the nation explaining why Iraq was a threat that demanded military intervention? Or do you mean the 18 months of diplomatic efforts in which the Bush Administration exhausted every diplomatic option, at the expense of strategic surprise, before finally being forced to act? Just curious. Just for kicks sometime, you should try to reconcile your rhetoric ("rush to war") with the facts. That should keep you busy for a while.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 8:42 AM
Bradley,
I don't mean to speak for Jim Wallis but I think when he references a "rush to war" he is referring to the fact that Iraq did not pose a clear danger to the US. Therefore our invasion of Iraq was a clearly aggressive act for which there is no justification.
Posted by: Will H. | November 15, 2007 2:27 PM
Will H.,
I believe that your statement is incorrect, but since it is a matter of oppinion, I will take a different tact. The first war with Iraq was never "ended." Hostilities were suspended provided that Iraq meet certain obligations, which they did at first and then ignored. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, even if Iraq posed absolutely no threat (which is clearly not the case) the U.S. had not only the right, but the obligation to enforce the terms of the original cease fire.
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 2:37 PM
Bradley,
The reason we went to war with Iraq had nothing to do with Saddam, UN resolutions, nuclear weapons, hostilities, or human rights. It was all about oil and the pursuit of power and the expansion of the American empire. Neocons used our anger and fear and need for revenge after 9/11 to initiate a plan developed over a decade earlier to implement their so-called “Pax Americana”. Unfortunately, things did not quite work out as planned.
Posted by: H. Mills | November 15, 2007 4:01 PM
Bradley,
my statement is not incorrect. The justification that the Bush administration used to go to war was WMDs. We now know that there were no WMDs and the intelligence we had about the weapons was faulty, yet we used it anyway. Maybe you can explain to me what threat Iraq posed to the US.
Posted by: Will H. | November 15, 2007 4:32 PM
Will H,
1.) WMD's were one of many reasons Bush cited in making the case for war. (Incidentally, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden also cited them in making their case as well.)
2.) The CIA, Brittish intel, French intel, Russian intel and the U.N. all believed WMD's to be in Iraq in greater quantities than were found. (Your implication that we knowingly used faulty intelligence is incorrect. The French and Russians agreed with our assessment, they just didn't want to go to war with Iraq, because as we now know, they were making billions off of the Oil for Food program while the people of Iraq were suffering.)
3.) WMD's have in fact been found in Iraq, only not in the quantities expected. The number found was around 500. (Your assertion that none have been found is incorrect.)
Posted by: Bradley | November 15, 2007 8:43 PM
Must say I'm a bit startled by the Catholic Bishops' contribution to the discussion on the Iraq War. Didn't realize they still have a moral voice. Where have they been? What was the rush?
I'll be more startled if they ever offer moral counsel to the 17 year old contemplating enlisting in the military service with the same absolute certainty that they offer moral counsel to the 17 year old contemplating an abortion. The Church's silence, the failure to advocate for the lives of Iraqi citizens, babies, women, and men, year after year, is pathetic, and nothing less than evil.
As a Catholic, I pray daily that they find the courage to speak directly to the men and women who execute the war that two Popes have condemned as failing to satisfy the criteria for a just war. It is now easy and comfortable to preach against abortion. It takes courage to suggest that the lives of Iraqi babies are as worthy of our care and concern as unborn babies in America.
Until the bishops step up and speak directly to the individuals who call themselves Catholic, I can not care what platitudes they offer to Ms. Rice or President Bush. This is sad, sad joke.
Posted by: Todd | November 15, 2007 9:04 PM
Be careful judging Iran using outright lies and deception put out by our present (rogue) government. Instead do as I have putting in some research into what is going on in the Middle East today.
Be aware for instance, of the only two unstable nations in that region, the US-Gov was covertly involved in enabling both of these nations to acquire nuclear tech and materials, that in fact enabled enriching to 90%-grade needed to make their (stockpiles) of atomic weapons. Pakistan being one of the nations.
Consider also, of the only nation today the Int'l Atomic Energy Agency (has) monitored, even setting up monitoring camera after years and hurdereds of man hours, is the nation of Iran... Iran also the only nation a member of the IAEA 'Non-Proliferation' agreement. Be aware that before the US-gov got involved getting UN Security Council members to say Iran is not in compliance, upper-level members in the IAEA said Iran had been very helpful, and as far as they can testify, Iran is in compliance with IAEA rules and protocals. Iran said enriching to 3.5% grade usefull in Nuclear Power Plants only.
Would I with research into the Iran/US-Gov contention then believe Iran over the Cheney-Admin, in the blink of an eye. Then what should we do about the Iran/US-Gov problem, the most obvious need is to Impeach the entire Bush-Admin, and clean out those installed by Cheney in every Office, Dept, And Agency that Cheney and his ilk have corrupted.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 12:52 AM
As a Christian, I salute your wisdom, courage and knowledge in rebuking (may I add) the greater part of the entire Christian church, in their deafening-silence regarding the murder and atrocities perpetuated against innocent men, women, and children in Iraq.
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 1:02 AM
A lot of people have worked themselves up into a frenzy, or been worked up into it by others who will profit from the fallout, and are looking for some way to vent thall the pent-up frustration with violhence of some kind.
Usually in human history this is by means of massive destruction and bloodletting through war.
Notice that rational arguments don't work. These folks are itching for a fight and use inflammatory language.
Talk of peace makes them even more livid.
They are waiting and hoping for a provocation, even if they have to provoke it, or enough assumed insults to push them over the edge into being able to justify "letting 'er rip."
Madness wouldn't you say?
Posted by: | November 16, 2007 1:06 AM
Bradley
WMD was (not one reason) the Bush/Cheney-Admin decided to begin pre-emptive war with Iraq, it was the 'predominate-reason.
This was made clear on May 30, 2003 when Paul Wolfowitz during interview by Vanity Fair said "For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq), because it was the one reason we could all agree on."
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 1:17 AM
I believe that your statement is incorrect, but since it is a matter of oppinion, I will take a different tact. The first war with Iraq was never "ended." Hostilities were suspended provided that Iraq meet certain obligations, which they did at first and then ignored.
When Saddan Hussein discovered that Pres-GHW Bush was using UN 'Weapons Inspectors' to send instead CIA-Agents on covert spy missions, Saddam demanded that all US (supposed) Inspectors be removed from Iraq.
It is now apparent as part of the radical PNAC-Org and Richard Cheney group had planned their invasion (whether Saddam still reigned) of Iraq, dating back during this 1989-1993 period. It also being obvious the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with atrocities (both Reagan and GHW Bush as Presidents were involved supplying Satellite/Spy-Plane data), nor even WMD (Reagan 1982 removed Iraq from US 'Terrorist Supporting Nation' listing before a virtual embargo).
Posted by: DeWayne | November 16, 2007 1:37 AM
It is now easy and comfortable to preach against abortion. It takes courage to suggest that the lives of Iraqi babies are as worthy of our care and concern as unborn babies in America.
Todd said
Todd that is just crazy ? Do you realize how unpopular this war is , and how folks on the left just mock pro life beliefs .
Having that said , I agree with you , but your method of delivery really needs some help . You need not put down the importance of life of the unborn , to promote a anti war stance .
Just consider the possibility that the person who could have directed us out of this war , was aborted .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 16, 2007 4:22 AM
It is now apparent as part of the radical PNAC-Org and Richard Cheney group had planned their invasion (whether Saddam still reigned) of Iraq, dating back during this 1989-1993 period.
DEWAYNE POSTED
It is obvious to me that when statements like this are made , One must wonder what else you know we don't ? Why did Bill Clinton state they had Nuclear capabilites ? And why Did his wife state they had WMD,s , even before King George the second was in town ?
Ok Grassy Noll ?
9/11 ? Who was behind it
Why did the Beattles really break up ?
What ever you can tell us will be kept a secret !
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 16, 2007 4:31 AM
Mick-
I do not intend to discount the life of the unborn in any way, but rather, see the lives of all innocent children of God upheld as worthy of our love. What I want to hear from our bishops is a voice for a consistent life ethic.
Maybe it is not easy to preach against abortion- I stand corrected-- but it is, at least expected, and supported by the powers who calmly call for the destruction of our enemies (and their wives and children and grandparents...)
Posted by: Todd | November 16, 2007 5:10 AM
True religion's call is not to act as an amen chorus to secular power, but as its conscience.
May those called by His name and who truly belong to Him be given the desire to hear His voice and receive the courage and humility to act according to His commands.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 16, 2007 10:39 AM
calmly call for the destruction of our enemies (and their wives and children and grandparents...)
Posted by: Todd
Todd , you mean people who are in favor of stopping the violence in Iraq by stopping the terrorists ? Todd , I do not support this war in Iraq , I have a son scheduled to depart for there this October . I don't want him to go .
I find it offensive of you as a Christian that you are promoting Christians who supported President Bush actually advocated for killing innocent people . Innocent people have died , yes .
I put the majority of blame on the terrorist , and hope and "pray" for better thinking by our leaders in the future . But I really find your view off the mark here . I disagree with people who support this war , but I don't see them as the murderers . That is sad you do .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 16, 2007 11:48 AM
Mick, when you kill other people you don't know, in the murk of dangerous urban settings in someone else's land where you don't even understand their language, just what is it, if not murder - even if you've been given a license, like agent 007?
You can't be so ignorant as to not know it requires smothering of conscience to open fire on innocent people in vehicles, just because you can't be sure they won't turn out to be going to fire on you? The only safe course for self-preservation is not to take chances and kill them (murder them) regardless.
This happens Mick. It's reported by soldiers themselves. And the private mercenaries are infamous for it.
Innocent people are having to die because foreigners can't tell who's a threat or not and so have to kill indiscriminately.
The rules of engagement are abysmal.
This is what poor command and loss of moral clarity have done to our cause, making our end acts, despite some people's good intentions, indistinguishable from those using terror.
Some of us were really, really stupid. But when we know, and continue, it's not stupidity, it's immorality.
You know that invoking "following orders" doesn't cut the mustard when conscience is stricken as it ought to be. We didn't torture the Nazi war criminals the way some wanted us to, but instead gave them open trials, where the excuse of being covered by following orders didn't absolve them.
Your son ought to be fully informed of what it is he is going to be called upon to do to others and his own soul. He will be killing at least some innocent civilians because he won't be able to tell who is friendly and who is not and he will value his own life and those of his fellow soldiers more than the people he is purportedly defending.
You owe it to his life and those of whom he will be killing to be honest with yourself and him, instead of hiding behind all the platitudes and wishful thinking that pervades your thinking.
Else it is likely that he will not be coming back, or if he does, severely damaged in body or mind.
May God save your son, and save him from shedding innocent blood. In Jesus' name.
Posted by: Another Father | November 16, 2007 12:16 PM
I want to commend all the writers on this blog for being civil on this very heartfelt subject, even though there are obviously two sides to the discussion. This is the only site where I find true dialogue happening, not just rhetoric, judgement and incrimination of one side of the issue of the other. Jim Wallis has created a place where it is safe to express your opinion in an atmosphere of fellow Christians and some non to express very heartfelt thoughts about this ugly war and its consequences. We are all troubled by the lack of peace in our world as we approach another Christmas falling short of what the Prince of Peace stood for, died for, and desires for mankind. God, forgive us our ignorance and moral failing and may we rise to the task of living according to your will in the coming New Year.
Posted by: Bill Kessenich | November 16, 2007 3:06 PM
1.) “WMD's were one of many reasons Bush cited in making the case for war. (Incidentally, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden also cited them in making their case as well.)”
WMDs were the main reason the Bush administration used as justification to go to war with Iraq. That is clearly the case, so to say it was one of many reasons, while factually correct, is missing the point. WMDs were by far the main reason for invasion. As far as Clinton, Kerry, and Biden go I’ll give you that. Sure they used the same reasoning, so what?
2.) “The CIA, Brittish intel, French intel, Russian intel and the U.N. all believed WMD's to be in Iraq in greater quantities than were found. (Your implication that we knowingly used faulty intelligence is incorrect. The French and Russians agreed with our assessment, they just didn't want to go to war with Iraq, because as we now know, they were making billions off of the Oil for Food program while the people of Iraq were suffering.)”
The source that we used from Iraq has now admitted that he gave us faulty information and we knew that he was untrustworthy when we used him. Think link from CBS shows what I am talking about. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml
3.) WMD's have in fact been found in Iraq, only not in the quantities expected. The number found was around 500. (Your assertion that none have been found is incorrect.)
You must be referring to the Rick Santourm study that found over 500 chemical weapons. The problem with this is the fact that there was nothing new found, and all of those were degraded weapons from pre-1991. Here is a link to a Washington Post article that describes why that study showed nothing new.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/22/AR2006062201839.html
Posted by: Will H. | November 16, 2007 3:47 PM
I would never maintain that our service men willfully kill innocent civilians in this war. Unfortunately, modern warfare practices make it an indisputable fact: innocent civilians will be killed by our military operations. When the decision maker committed us to this war, it was done knowing that many thousands of civilians would die. Whether you accept the Johns Hopkins study numbers (what was it, 650,000?) or the US Military estimate (around 100,000) the number is large.
My point remains this: The lives of all children of God are worthy of our concern, be they unborn children in America or innocents in any country we choose to attack. Might the bishops muster some voice on behalf of the Iraqi civilians? And might they offer some real, moral counsel to the young men and women who will be doing the killing?
Posted by: Todd | November 16, 2007 4:48 PM
"I want to commend all the writers on this blog for being civil on this very heartfelt subject, even though there are obviously two sides to the discussion. This is the only site where I find true dialogue happening, not just rhetoric, judgement and incrimination of one side of the issue of the other. Jim Wallis has created a place where it is safe to express your opinion in an atmosphere of fellow Christians and some non to express very heartfelt thoughts about this ugly war and its consequences." ---Bill Kessenich
Shut up. If you don't like living in American then move to Iran.
Posted by: cheyenne bodie | November 16, 2007 5:12 PM
"Shut up. Love it or leave it."
That is so inappropriate. That such things are expressed shows that something is very, very wrong with our hearts.
How very near we are to the madnesses of self-immolation and murder expressed through the blood-letting of war.
Isn't it an historical reality that the rise of militarism, hyper-nationalism and racial phobias always seem to become existential at just the same time? And just what is happening to us, too, now?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | November 16, 2007 5:36 PM
"Mick, when you kill other people you don't know, in the murk of dangerous urban settings in someone else's land where you don't even understand their language, just what is it, if not murder - even if you've been given a license, like agent 007?"
Me
That is such apathetic anaology it is insulting to the men and women there , and to the innocent lives being lost there .
You
You can't be so ignorant as to not know it requires smothering of conscience to open fire on innocent people in vehicles,
Me
Ignorant , your diplaying yours . Smothering of conscience ? How often do we see our men and women who hcome back from all the wars never get over that "smoldering" of conscience . What hurts so much right now is your ignorance and the fact people here will support your perverted view here . Those men and boys are sacrificing more then their time over there , many will sacrifice their lives , either my the full measure of the bodily life , or the "smoldered" memories that never go away . They leave more then just body parts over there .
You
just because you can't be sure they won't turn out to be going to fire on you? The only safe course for self-preservation is not to take chances and kill them (murder them) regardless.
Me .. I am quite aware of what happens in war . Thank God I never had to go , and I certainly in my youth would never volunteer to . I am a peace nik myself . Never even liked guns .
You
This happens Mick. It's reported by soldiers themselves. And the private mercenaries are infamous for it.
me
And this is suppose to mean what , mean that our troops over there should not be prayed for ? That the innocents should not be prayed for ? That my position against the war is immoral ? That I believe we need to honor these men and women who sarifice so much ?
You
Innocent people are having to die because foreigners can't tell who's a threat or not and so have to kill indiscriminately.
Me ? What , welcome to the hell of war . Its why most people say it should always be the last resort , its why I and others are against this war . If you want to hear about hundreds of thousands of innocent deaths , read about the bombing of Germany , Bresdin I believe is the famous one where the city was just flatened . Makes the innocent pale in comparison here , and that is not meant to say the innocent lives in Iraq have no meaning . You understanding of war killing and murdering innocent people is nothing new ? Is it something new for you ? Excuse me if I find your post here somewhat strange , I am somewhat of a histoty nut , and love American History especially . Innocent people in wars dying is nothing new . Its why war sucks , its why we need to honor the men who have sacrificed so much and remember them and try to honor them so much we never send anymore into war if possible .
You
The rules of engagement are abysmal.
Me
War is abysmal . The rules of engagement and war is basically is destroy the enemy . Make it so they can not get up and hit you back , and end the war as quickly as you can . Its why wars should never be encourgaged , there is no such thing as a fair war !!!!!!!!!!!!!
You
This is what poor command and loss of moral clarity have done to our cause, making our end acts, despite some people's good intentions, indistinguishable from those using terror.
Me
Oh please , I watched this documenatray some guy Bren promoted about this very thing . How they desentize you into killing as aceptable . In this documentary is stated the song the recruits were taught were about killing inncocent children . The thing Is everyone would consider that disgusting , I am not sure terrorist training camps would , but here , we Americans would .
I know that is not happening now in our training camps , and the liberal documentary portrayed it as normal . If it was true it has stopped , unfortunately the documenntary was so polluted in idealogy it lost some of its meaning and ability to make a dent into our culture . If a training song like that occured right after 9/11 it was wrong , disgusting and I join you in that . Making our troops equal with the terrorists , well thats the Wallis mentality I guess , I wish someone here would rebutt you , that would encourgage me into believing this land of ours was getting better , not sicker in our critical thinking . Your thinking causes wars , if you can not tell the difference between people who strap on bombs on babies , you know they still do that , and our troops ? Well , this was a waste of time .
YOU
Your son ought to be fully informed of what it is he is going to be called upon to do to others and his own soul.
Me
People like yourself who have no knowledge of discernment of morality are exactly the kinds of people I have informed him about . Your words were not welcomed , and you are speaking to a Dad who is scared for his kid , your a self righteous pharisee as far as I can see, talking about love and showing none . . You have compassion and love in your heart ? For who , your own opinions ? But not the person who you are directly talking to . My word man , my kid is going to be shot at , possible killed because of what ? Sp people like you can have a free opinion . I guess that is something , and people like you don't have to understand it or honor them for it . We and mine will .
You
May God save your son, and save him from shedding innocent blood. In Jesus' name.
Posted by: Another Father
As if anyone would want any different , Unbelievable .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 17, 2007 2:20 PM
The lives of all children of God are worthy of our concern, be they unborn children in America or innocents in any country we choose to attack. Might the bishops muster some voice on behalf of the Iraqi civilians? And might they offer some real, moral counsel to the young men and women who will be doing the killing?
Posted by: Todd
Todd again the point I made is the innocent lives here are not considered important on this very blog who are so adamant about promoting their "moral" clarity .
I have no problem with your view , your linking it to support for the lives of the unborn I found illogical . Peoople who believed this war was necessary were led to believe that if we don't attack it will be worse if we don't . They were wrong in my opinion , you were right , but that is a far cry for you to condemn their beliefs of life in the womb being protected .
I just was greeted with a comment about my son and our military being on a equal plain with the terrorists . You know that view is on this blog , you know many who support this organization see that , the moral equilvancy of terorists and the United States .
There is a difference between those who train people to put bombs in to packs with a baby and put that baby in a crowwded area and murder dozens just to intimidate a neigborhood .
What a terrible mess this war is .
Posted by: Mick Sheldon | November 17, 2007 2:32 PM
I was not born in the USA, though my parents were. I did undergraduate and graduate school there and the wonder of jazz, blues and opportunity for open artistic expression is a positve side of America.
However, the fitful materialistic heedless addiction to internal combustion engine and horrific misuse of land has succeeded in convincing me that the entire monopolistic crony capitalistic lifestyle is inherently unsustainable.
I have left living that crazy lifestyle for good. To do this, one needs to leave the continent. Like Atlantis, it killed itself.
That much of middle american xian religion hasn't realized its desperate hypocracy hurts every conscientious human.
American consumerist/materialist lifestyle is an undesirable way to live: in no way exportable or desired by us in the majority world.
Only you who want to live there and work for a progressive change can do something for change.
WE out here have had enough of military US posse comitas' Blackwater etal (in)justice. There is a much better way to live. MLK, Gandhi, and St. Francis are models for non-violent peaceful living. The US lifestyle is killing the earth. And only you who live there can change it.
Posted by: Paul L. Johnson | November 19, 2007 5:02 AM
Please pardon this long post, but I thought someone should read about Just War Criteria and Iraq. I wrote this article a while back. Please pardon the formatting that did not take in this cut and paste - but a readable version can be found at bkny.com.
**********************************
JUST WAR CRITERIA SET AGAINST IRAQ
As a follower and observer of religion and politics, I have heard references to Just War Theory and its arguable application to the Iraq Conflict. The claim usually comes by way of the same Christian-Republican suspects who seek to impose biblical law in America in place of the Constitution. The characters, such as Stephen Dillard (as seen on Hardball with Chris Matthews), bandy about “Just War” theory knowing nobody will get into the criteria, because if they did these characters would likely be in a loyalty-signing group who will not challenge their assertions.
To elevate the dialog, let us set-forth the criteria and see if it fits.
After a simple Google search (http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/harvestexr.htm#b), two theories ascended (1) non-violence and (2) just war. Apparently, according to the US Catholic Bishops, in order to get to just war the strong presumption of non-violence must be overcome. So let’s have at a plain language reading, shall we:
· Just War: New Questions. The just-war tradition consists of a body of ethical reflection on the justifiable use of force. In the interest of overcoming injustice, reducing violence and preventing its expansion, the tradition aims at:
a. clarifying when force may be used,
b. limiting the resort to force and
c. restraining damage done by military forces during war.
So far this reads as one might expect, a criteria for checking basic assumptions.
The just-war tradition begins with a strong presumption against the use of force and then establishes the conditions when this presumption may be overridden for the sake of preserving the kind of peace which protects human dignity and human rights.
In a disordered world, where peaceful resolution of conflicts sometimes fails, the just-war tradition provides an important moral framework for restraining and regulating the limited use of force by governments and international organizations. Since the just-war tradition is often misunderstood or selectively applied, we summarize its major components, which are drawn from traditional Catholic teaching.
It is refreshing that selective application is addressed, and heartens my words help quell the noted misunderstanding, even if by simply making clear the plain language application attempted here. Now back.
CRITERIA FOR OVERRIDING THE STRONG PRESUMPTION OF NON-VIOLENCE AND THE USE OF LETHAL FORCE
First, whether lethal force may be used is governed by the following criteria:
JUST CAUSE: force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic rights of whole populations
Of course 911 was a grave evil, but that would merely serve as a Just Cause against Osama Bin Laden, Al-Qa’ida, The Taliban or perhaps Afghanistan.
Iraq, on the other hand, meets the Just Cause criteria as a correction of the massive violation of the basic rights of the Shia and Kurds.
COMPARATIVE JUSTICE: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other.
In Iraq, the wrongs suffered by the Shia and Kurdish populations significantly outweighs any wrongs done to Sunnis or Saddam Hussein, unless one looks to the history of the conflict and realizes the Shia killed the family of the Prophet Mohammed thereby decapitating the main mechanism of life for these people. This can go neither way from a historical perspective, but as current fare, we can say Iraq meets the Comparative Justice criteria.
LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY: only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war
The United States of America, The US Army, The US Marines, The US Navy, The US Air Force, The USNG&R are clearly duly constituted public authorities and meet the Legitimate Authority criteria. Independent contractors and mercenaries are not duly constituted public authorities. While one may make agency arguments as these entities were put in place by a public authority, the plain language definition is not met. This can go neither way, but as current fare, we can say Iraq meets the Legitimate Authority criteria. An argument against might be that war was never declared y any Legitimate Authority, the US Congress being the only body justified to do so, but as deadly force appears to be equated in these criteria, the conflict in Iraq meets the Legitimate Authority criteria.
RIGHT INTENTION: force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose
The Just Cause criterion was met above. It may be argued that this is not a “truly” Just Cause because of the involvement of the United States in supporting the Hussein regime during the Iran crisis and thereafter and in supplying the mechanisms used to form much of the Just Cause (supplying the gas used against the Kurds). Additionally, given the evolving (from a US political perspective) nature of the conflict, it cannot be reasonably argued that force is being used for any “sole” purpose. The Right Intention criteria is not met and thus the presumption of non-violence is not overcome and the war cannot be “just.”
PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS: arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success
The criteria begin to get at the fundamental problem with the conflict in Iraq, that being the manner in which it was sold and then conducted.
Having ultimate faith in the US armed forces, I believe strongly that they knew what was coming, they had a plan, they had limits and they put forth that information to those engaged in the preparation and management of this war. General Shinseki’s firing chilled dissent in the ranks of the armed forces just as 911 chilled dissent in the collective conscience of our people, our press and our leaders – just as the death of a child would change any of us indelibly. Perhaps our uniformed men and women chose to work inside.
Iraq always had a poor probability of success, especially given that success has never been defined, outside replacing Saddam Hussein. Therefore, after “Mission Accomplished,” given the inability to define success, disproportionate measures were and remain necessary for success. To be sure, before Mission Accomplished was declared, no through mission was declared and thus disproportionality was inevitable. The conflict was and remains disproportionate in that the majority of the Iraqi people will have to be killed to meet our objective – clear madness as a policy. Disproportionality is found in the use of far more sophisticated weapons. This is especially true in that the Sunni must seek available outside assistance to remain viable. The Iraq conflict fails to meet these criteria, this presumption of non-violence is not overcome and this was is not just under these criteria.
PROPORTIONALITY: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved
With no definable mission or objectives, any expected destruction outweighs the use of force. However, taking the replacement of the head of government as the good to be achieved, no argument can reasonably be sustained that the destruction of these people and this culture is outweighed by that good. In Iraq, the good v. evil cannot sustain the small v large-scale argument. As to the criteria of Proportionality, the presumption of non-violence is not overcome and this conflict is not just.
LAST RESORT: force may be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted
These criteria also cannot be sustained by reasonable argument given the threat v. the “potential” good. Many argue that the conflict was a last resort given Iraq’s decade of defiance, their flouting numerous Security Council resolutions and simply the Just Cause against them. However, the Last Resort criterion was abandoned by the Bush Doctrine of Preemption. Non-violence is not overcome; this is not a just use of deadly force.
The US Bishops then make clear these criteria must all be met, not selectively met.
These criteria (jus ad bellum), taken as a whole, must be satisfied in order to override the strong presumption against the use of force.
The strong presumption against the use of force has not been overcome. Now we move onto just war, a theory that must fail, given the criteria already left behind as analyzed above. Remember, if we do not get past the non-violent presumption, which we have not, we do not even get to the question of just war. For the sake of addressing these misunderstood principals, we will not look at Just War criteria.
Second, the just-war tradition seeks also to curb the violence of war through restraint on armed combat between the contending parties by imposing the following moral standards (jus in bello) for the conduct of armed conflict:
THE JUST WAR CRITERIA
NONCOMBATANT IMMUNITY: civilians may not be the object of direct attack, and military personnel must take due care to avoid and minimize indirect harm to civilians
US Soldiers and Marines in large measure fit this criterion, if history is a measure.
US paid mercenaries do not fit this criterion initially by their mere presence as a non-public authority, but also because reports from the field show them to be disproportionate in their harm, especially in the area of torturing the not guilty, who are by definition, civilians. This is not a just war.
PROPORTIONALITY: in the conduct of hostilities, efforts must be made to attain military objectives with no more force than is militarily necessary and to avoid disproportionate collateral damage to civilian life and property
Let us assume the pre-“Mission Accomplished” objective was attained proportionally. [An interesting side-note is that any Powell Doctrine (overwhelming force) War is unjust by its nature.] After the flight deck speech, the proportionality cannot be met as no military objective can be defined. Victory is not a defined objective. Stability is not a military objective. While one may argue that our initial Proportionality meets the criteria even if it left a new problem that is being dealt with proportionally, that argument lacks reasonableness given the metrics known before the war as forwarded by the spectacular US Armed Forces. In fact, the collateral damages themselves render this conflict disproportionate. The current state is not proportional and this conflict does not meet the Just War Criteria.
RIGHT INTENTION: even in the midst of conflict, the aim of political and military leaders must be peace with justice, so that acts of vengeance and indiscriminate violence, whether by individuals, military units or governments, are forbidden
While this Right Intention is both the stated goal of the US administration and the aim of our military, the indigenous population (by individuals, military units like the Mahdi army and government units like the Shia death squads) is engaged in acts of indiscriminate violence.
On the US side, the aim is met in principal and word, but the principals seem to be working against it in deed. The idea of any Right Intention is smothered by the deeds done at Abu Ghraib, as seen in individual atrocities, by paying death squads to even the violence and political landscape. The deed smothers intention by working in whatever way imaginable to end in a politically justifiable manner – either by unacceptably delaying until the Administration changes, by unacceptably refusing to accept a governmental form considered unacceptable – Sharia Law, military government, split boarders or by factoring in oil to the equation. All of this should have been factored in before going. This conflict does not meet the Just War criteria.
In the end, nobody can reasonably state “there is an argument to be made for Just War,” if only because as far as Iraq goes, we never hurdled the “strong presumption against the use of force.”
Peace be with us and let us remember these words of Jesus, “…for all that take up the sword shall perish with the sword.” Matt. 26:52
Posted by: Jon | November 19, 2007 2:14 PM
So was Jesus meeting out Justice when he made a wipe of cords and cleared out the money changers from the temple?
Was it vengence? He is after all LORD.
Was it Just War for Joan of Arc to lead the French in their war of liberation from the English?
Was it a Just War for America and other countries to fight the Nazis and Fascists? Or was it a matter of Nationalism and imperialism as some imply?
In prayer for all of us to form our conscience under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Posted by: C J. | November 20, 2007 2:52 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?