A Just War in Iraq?
by Steve Farrell
Note: The author wishes to make clear that the column below represents his views and his alone. In no way should they be construed as the official position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
In the days ahead, as President Bush and his administration turn up the volume on the drums of war to deafening new levels – it will be well to remember that some of us, even some of us conservatives, still recall and still support the early American and Christian “just war” doctrine.
A scripture held sacred by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, for instance, invites nations “never to give an offense, yea, never to raise the sword except it were against an enemy, except it were to preserve their lives,” and their families, and their religion, and their freedom. It was, mostly, a defensive war doctrine, which promised prosperity to those nations who obeyed it-and a withdrawal of Divine protection for those who did not-or in other words it condemned going to war for the love of blood and war, power and wealth, or an inordinate spirit of vengeance or prejudice. (Alma 48:14, 11-16; Mormon 4:4-5, See also Encyclopedia of Mormonism, War and Peace)
But it isn’t a cut and dry position. In the same record, enemies preparing for war, or positioning for war, though not yet attacking the homeland were cut off, surrounded, and routed by pre-emptive strikes, when evidence gathered by spies was placed side by side with past and current attitudes and actions of the enemy. With a fixed and dedicated enemy on the warpath, the religious commentator heralded pre-emptive war as just and wise. Why wait until the enemy has an upper hand, and casualties are high and it is too late? (See Moroni’s frequent use of strategem, when not under actual attack, Alma 43:28-36; Laban slain, though not an immediate threat, 1 Nephi 4; Moroni executed his countrymen, not for launching an attack, but for refusing to take up arms in a time of national peril, Moroni 62:9-10)
This seems to be the position of President Bush-a pre-emptive strike against impending enemy designs, based, his administration claims, on solid intelligence and the voice of history.
The Catholics too, have a just war doctrine that is worth studying in the context of our pending War with Iraq. Some commentators note that this particular dogma justifies defensive war only-meaning, a response in kind when under actual attack, which they say, disqualifies “Bush’s War.” They err.
From the Catholic Encyclopedia we read:
“Catholic philosophy . concedes to the State the full natural right of war, whether defensive, as in case of another’s attack in force upon it; offensive (more properly, coercive), where it finds it necessary to take the initiative in the application of force; or punitive, in the infliction of punishment for evil done against itself or, in some determined cases, against others.”
Three general cases qualify, then, as a natural right under this faith’s definition.
1. In defense-in response to a current attack.
2. In offense-apparently, when one knows war is inevitable, and that a first strike would minimize the damage to the homeland, and optimize the chances for victory.
3. An after the fact act of justice for an attack against one’s nation or against one’s ally.
1. The Bush Administration has noted, US planes flying patrol in accordance with international agreement to which Iraq is a party, suffer regular attacks by Iraq.
2. The Bush Administration maintains that Iraq is secretly building weapons of mass destruction in violation of post Gulf War Treaties, that Iraq is secretly forging alliances with terrorists who threaten violence against the United States, and that Iraq has a butcher at its helm who, has and will use such weapons against the United States and it allies-especially Israel. To stop Iraq, now, would be to minimize the potential for harm, the Administration argues.
.
3. The Bush Administration holds, that a continuation of justice for past Iraqi aggression against its neighbors and its own people, justifies a US presence in Iraq. Iraq, however, is in breach of the terms of peace, and so like an ex-con violating patrol, she must pay a price, for the good of humanity.
On the other hand, the President can do three things to strengthen his hand.
One, throw in for good measure, evidence unearthed by the New American, the Washington Times’ Insight Magazine, and Judicial Watch, regarding Iraqi sponsoring of the Oklahoma City bombing. The evidence is solid enough that Judicial Watch has sued Iraq for in behalf of the Oklahoma City victim’s families. Let’s hear more about this.
Two, stop trying to legitimize and empower the United Nations. History will one day prove that no organization in the history of the world has been a greater sponsor state of terrorism and communism than the United Nations. (1) Any permanent peace that follows victory in Iraq, that involves the UN, may only make things worse.
Three, do not permit the exile of Saddam Hussein. This is an old trick of the International Community. Hold an alliance together by failing fully to route one’s enemy. Austrian 19th Century Insider, Prince Metternich, revealed how it was that Napoleon was exiled to the nearby island of Elba, following his defeat-rather than put to death-so that “the threat of Napoleon” would hold the alliance together. After Napoleon agreed to economic concessions with the Bank of England, Napoleon “sprang forth” from “exile” to lead his army once again-backed by English money.
Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer; treat him accordingly.
Contact Steve Farrell at [email protected]
Footnotes
1. Please see the author’s, “The Un-American United Nations,” for a full discussion regarding the questionable beginnings and the un-American underpinnings of the United Nations
2002 Meridian Magazine. All Rights Reserved.
