Just War, and its Limits

Here I am, up too early, watching the morning news shows at the beginning of a momentous two weeks for this country and the world.  What can the Church say in this time that is relevant to the realities of the situation in Syria, but which also gives a reason for the hope that is in us as followers of Jesus Christ (1 Peter 3:15)?  Our Lord and Savior, just before his arrest, warned us that all who take up the means of violence shall themselves be subjected to that same violence (Matt 26:52).  Yet the church that Jesus bequeathed to his disciples has, for most of its history, accepted into its ranks those who defend others with the means of violence.  The Church lives with human beings in the muddled realities of this world, while calling them to a higher hope.

The way that the Church has developed for this way of life and hope is the theology of just war.  As far back as St. Augustine in the 4th century, the Church has formulated criteria to help people decide whether to go to war, and how to fight that war in a way that limits its destruction.

Just War Theology and Syria

First, there must be a just cause, an injustice so severe that violence is justified in stopping the injustice.  In the case of Syria, the injustice of the Assad regime in Sryia is manifest.  For two years, Bashar al Assad has acted in the same way that his father, Hafez, acted against a popular rebellion in 1982, with brutal force against men, women and children.  Both the American and French governments have presented clear and convincing evidence that he has now crossed a red line that is not just President Obama's.  It is a red line that has been drawn in international treaties for nearly a century.  Not even Hitler crossed that red line against Allied soldiers or British civilians.  It is fair to point out that American outrage has been selective, since we said nothing when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988. But should the Syrian people pay the price for that selectivity?  

But it is not enough for there to be a just cause.  There must also be a competent authority to decide this question, namely a governing system that is accountable to its members.  Ideally, the most legitimate institution, representing all the people of Earth, is the United Nations, governed by treaties of cooperation and consultation that almost all nations have signed onto.  It provided the authority for our intervention against Iraq when its soldiers invaded Kuwait.  But the United Nations has no power to impose its will on any nation.  The reality is that all nations reserve to themselves the right to undertake force, with or without UN authorization.  Giving the dictators of Russia and China veto power over a good faith effort to prevent the further use of chemical weapons is not just.

When it comes to the United States, I believe that President Obama has done the right thing in asking the American people's representatives to decide this question.  Especially since the end of World War II, as we have assumed the responsibilities of a great power and accepted a level of military mobilization unheard of in previous times of peace, all presidents have claimed the power to use military force without congressional authorization.  But many of those actions were short term and limited in duration.  It is unclear to me whether the U.S. is risking a long term military involvement in Syria.  A congressional debate that forces the President to be more clear about his strategy to the American people will help ensure that a competent authority will have made the best possible decision under the circumstances.

That leads to the next two criteria, which I see as related: there must be a right intention for the use of force, and there must be a reasonable chance of success.  These criteria point to a series of questions that remain unanswered by the President, and which he must answer for military action against the Syrian regime to be morally acceptable.  What is the purpose of American strategy toward Syria?  Is it to change the regime, or just to replace the current leader?  And can American force change the situation on the ground in Syria that would leave the Syrian people better off, including those minorities (such as the local Christians) that find themselves in the middle between a Shiite Muslim dictator and radical Sunni Muslims who would probably treat them worse than they have been treated?

Or is the objective of military force in this case going to be limited to preventing the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian army?  If the use of American ground troops is off the table, how will this be accomplished solely though the use of American air power?  To use a chess analogy, it seems that President. Obama is seeking to check (not checkmate) Assad with a bunch of pawns.  How realistic an option is that?  These are the kinds of questions that need to be answered for any use of military force in Syria to be justified.  I hope the House and Senate will ask these questions of the Administration, rather than either vote yes or no simply because of who the current occupant of the presidency is.

Finally, there is the criteria of proportionality.  We need to understand as clearly as possible what the likely consequences of military action will be.  How will the Syrian people be better off after we have dropped our bombs and moved on to the next crisis of the day.  Will the use of military force cause more harm and damage to Syrian society than has been caused by the actions of the government and at least some of the rebels?  And this criterion also needs to be applied to our tactics as well as strategy.  Those who care nothing for innocent lives know how to use those lives against those who do.  When they place their fighters or weapons in the midst of civilian locations, those who wish to defend innocent life must ask how they might accomplish their just cause while knowing that some innocent lives will be lost because of the tactics of their enemies.

War in Syria?  Definitely Maybe

These are the kinds of questions that Christians should demand answers to.  Mine is just one view.  But as of Monday, September 3rd, 2013, I believe that the cause is manifestly just, and that the Commander in Chief is rightly seeking the most competent authority for military action.  His previous combination of rhetorical statements and inaction has led to an impression that he has no coherent strategy for Syria.  If he cannot articulate one in this debate, then military force in this case will be unjustified.

That said, I am sympathetic to the dilemmas he is facing.  The United States of America may be the Great Power of this time.  But our power is hardly infinite.  And in many parts of the world, our use of that power in supporting dictatorial regimes for the sake of "stability" has only proven the limits of our power to pull strings in other countries and cultures we barely understand.  The President has been understandably reluctant to use military power, especially in the light of our most recent missteps in Afghanistan and Iraq.  But we should not fight the last war in the middle of the current war.  If it is possible to prevent the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government in a way that is consistent with all the criteria of a just war, that would be morally justifiable.

The Need for Wisdom, and its Limitations

I may be wrong, just as those who are absolutely opposed to the use of force may be wrong as well.  And neither side can be sure of the consequences, of action or inaction.  So let us all be charitable toward each other.  This doesn't  look like a slam dunk to me.  And I hope that the debate will be civil and appreciative of the truth that we all may be wrong.  Finally, let us join Pope Francis in praying for peace this Thursday.  In this broken world of broken hearts and broken consciences, war is sometimes a tragic necessity.  But no war will bring lasting justice.  For at the heart of justice is reconciliation, which Jesus Christ accomplished between us and God on the cross.  Let us pray for this reconciliation to grow within every human heart.  And let us, by our own speech and actions toward each other, show forth that reconciliation.

Finally, back to Jesus.  Throughout my life, I have often felt torn between those who rightly proclaimed  peace, but seemed naïve about the unavoidable realities of this broken world; and those who simply counted the dead and broken bodies of their grand strategies as the price of “stability.”  Does Jesus have anything to say about this.  Actually he does.  “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves” (Matt 10:16).  

Jesus knows we live in a dangerous world among those who will do an evil if they think it to their advantage.  Therefore, we should be as wise as the snake in Eden, without being seduced by its temptations.  Sometimes the temptation may be to do nothing, to take no risk for fear that it will turn out wrong.  Other times the temptation may be to put ourselves in the place of God, assuming a knowledge we don’t really have, and enforcing a self righteousness that causes more harm than it cures.  I don’t know which temptation we should beware with regard to Syria.  But I pray that together, God will guide us to the best possible decision in this case, and that we might trust his reconciling will to be done, in spite of ourselves.