Professors lecture on ethics and "Just War"

Two speakers brought the discussion of ethics and just war to the fight against terrorism Wednesday Oct. 30 at the Young Center. Martin Cook, professor of ethics at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, presented a history of the just war theory and justification of the use of military force. Young Center Senior Fellow Donald Kraybill provided a response from the pacifist perspective. The program was sponsored in conjunction with Assistant Professor of Religion Michael Long’s Introduction to Peace and Conflict Studies class and Professor of Religion Christina Bucher’s Peace and Justice in Biblical Perspective class.

Cook began his lecture with a disclaimer, saying that the views he would present were not the "official policy or position of the Army, the Department of Defense or the U.S. Government." Next, he got down to business – the business of letting the students and community know all about the just war theory, taking them on a little time travel through the history of the Christian church.

According to Cook, the Church was originally opposed to involvement in wars and government. However, as a Christian Roman Empire emerged, opposition to war softened and Christians began to look at some wars as "just."

Although the just war theory has since dominated Christian ethical discussion about war, Cook said he believes that the changing dynamics of international politics are putting an end to the usefulness of this theory.

In the fourth century, the "Christian church progressively made its peace with the necessity of government and use of force ... with St Augustine’s careful distinction between the City of God and the City of Man," Cook said. According to Augustine, perfected peace was only possible in the City of God, and Christians living on Earth, in the City of Man, were faced with problems that didn’t exist in the City of God. According to Augustine, the "necessity of fighting was imposed by those who disrupt peace," Cook said. Jesus’s words, "Blessed are the peacemakers," could refer to soldiers who attempt to restore peace.

In later years, Augustine’s theories were secularized to a theory of just war that is "valid even if God [does] not exist," Cook said. The just war theory provides the framework for international law and methods of analyzing war; it is based on a bias against the use of force. The theory applies to justice before war is declared and after war begins.

Cook said, for a war to be just, several qualifications must be fulfilled. For instance, there must be just cause for the war to begin; second, war must be declared by a suitable authority. A reasonable hope of victory and porportionality between the threat of war and the destruction that will ensue must exist. Finally, all other means must have been eliminated. The just war theory entails giving a possible war a "common sense test." In actuality, this means that wars must be in response to a received threat, and today, restricts authority essentially to the United Nations security council. According to Cook, the applicability of the just war theory depends on the sovereignty of nation-states, as defined by the Treaty of Westphalia.

For several reasons, Cook said he believes that the just war theory is inadequate for the current fight against terrorism, or at least leaves many questions unanswered. First, there’s a problem with right authority. The Constitution provides for checks and balances between the power of the president and Congress; though the president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces, Congress has the power to vote to declare war and to raise an army. Since the Cold War, however, that system has changed. For the first time, the United States has a standing army that the president could deploy without Congress’s approval.

Second, Cook credited the declining role of sovereign nation-states in the international arena with a changing dynamic; terrorists can exact tremendous damage on a country without the authority of a nation state, and when a country is attacked, there is no clear enemy. States may cooperate with the prosecution of alleged terrorists, or they may resist and harbor terrorists. The situation raises questions about the respect for state sovereignty mandated by the Treaty of Westphalia: if another country is harboring members of the al Qaeda network, for example, should our government leave well enough alone, or intervene?

Cook proposed that the civilization that has been established is worth protecting, even if international law has to be overlooked. "Moral seriousness involves asking, if this civilization falls, what happens next?" he said.

Kraybill stepped to the podium next with his response. Though a pacifist by conviction, Kraybill admitted that he believed military force could at times be necessary. He agreed that the "development of international terrorism raises new moral, ethical and conceptual challenges."

Kraybill said, however, that he was cynical of the just war theory. He said that his cynicism came from a doubt that the ethical criteria were fully considered by politicians. For Kraybill, the discussion of just war raised questions about the nature of power. He asked, "Does order always rest on military power? What would the next chapter be? How should the U.S. respond to the ‘War on Terror?’"