I grew up in an area of the United States where there was a strong presence of Amish and Mennonite churches. For those of you unfamiliar with these denominations, one of the facets of their faith is a very strong peace, or pacifistic, testimony. While many of my childhood classmates and friends came from this heritage, I did not. Though my family wasn't what I'd call militaristic (though extended members on both sides of my family had served in the United States military), we were patriotic, and believed that there were certain times and certain principles worth fighting for if called upon to do so by our nation. That being said, I have a healthy intellectual respect for those who hold to Christian call to be peacemakers, even if I might argue that there are times when the only way peace can be made or preserved is through first engaging the enemy on the field of combat.
Historically, Christians have summed up their arguments in favor of supporting their government's call to arms via the Just War doctrine. Formulated by the early Church (much of it by St. Augustine), and embraced (and perhaps made famous) by the Roman Catholic Church (you can read more here), Just War theory argues the following:
1. The use of force is something that must be considered in the gravest of terms.
2. The use of force should be in defense, against an aggressor who is seeking to do great harm.
3. The use of force should be a last resort, after other (peaceful) options have been tried.
4. The use of force should carry with it a good chance of success when it comes to the conflict.
5. The use of force should not cause worse conditions than those that prompted their use at the outset.
6. It is up to the government to decide these factors.
7. The war should be conducted morally, this means fair treatment for non-combatants, wounded, and prisoners. Genocide and large scale destruction of whole cities is immoral.
Of course, one need not be Catholic to embrace the tenants of Just War Doctrine, most Protestant Churches have some variation on the above, even if most of the old Mainline denominations have become more pacifistic (and like my old Amish neighbors) over the course of the twentieth and into the twenty-first centuries. The interplay between growing American military, political, economic, and cultural influence, and the turn against many American foreign policy pronouncements by the Seven Sisters over the second half of the twentieth and into the twenty-first centuries is something I talk about in The Mainline. For more on the growth of pacifistic thought in America's churches, see these posts (here and here)
All of this theological discussion on the nature of war takes on a new meaning this week. The United States is currently set to debate, at the request of President Obama, a Congressional authorization for the use of military force in Syria (you can read more about it here, here, and here for starters). And if you read these (and other posts) the complexity of that request becomes clear. Democrats who have been anti-war are being asked by an administration of their own party to authorize war (as an aside, let us no longer kid ourselves about such "use of force" requests -- there might be technical differences, but this has simply become the modern "declaration of war" -- and cloaking it in any other language or denying it as such does a disservice to the American armed forces that are asked and tasked with undertaking such operations). Republicans are torn between wanting to protect (historically) bipartisan means by which the nation now fights its wars (some, no doubt, thinking ahead to the next presidential election), while also showcasing mistrust of the Obama Administration's intentions and plans. Some of the public appears to be "war weary," while others argue that this is not "our fight," and others still calling on the U.S. to embrace a non-violent, pacifistic role.
If we were to apply Just War doctrine to the Syrian case (and few supporters or detractors seem to be doing so), I think it would be a hard one to make. One might argue that since earlier this year, when a "red line" was first pronounced about the use of WMDs, that the U.S. government has been thinking about the use of force in "grave terms," so criteria 1 would have been met. Criteria 3 also has likely been met (war as a last resort). Criteria 4 (that of success) is a bit murky, though any air strike would likely be "successful" (the murkiness comes, rather, from how we define total success). Criteria 6 (a governmental decision) obviously is met. And criteria 7 (because of the likely limited nature of U.S. involvement -- Secretary of State Kerry having said that there would be no deployment of U.S. ground forces) might also be considered achieved.
The problem is that for Just War doctrine to be applied in the affirmative ALL the criteria must be met. Criteria 2 (that force be used defensively to halt a great harm) is somewhat problematic. Syria is in the midst of (at best) a civil war. On the one hand is the Assad family dictatorship (which is ruthless, fighting for its survival, and may very well have used WMDs). On the other, is a group of rebels, which includes some moderates, but also some with terrorist links (the latter, it has been alleged, may have used WMDs themselves). Neither side, in other words, is blameless. And while both sides may, on some level, be "bad," neither is actually posing a current, direct threat to the United States either. The argument that might be made is that they could pose such a threat in the future, or that what is happening is genocide that must be stopped, but I've yet to really hear that be articulated. Indeed, what the Obama Administration is proposing is akin to the Bush Doctrine it claimed to have rejected when the president took office in 2009. Likewise, it is not clear that a U.S. strike would meet criteria 5 either (that the use of force would not make the situation worse than it already is). After all, civil wars are, by their very nature, terrible for the nation involved. More bombs are not likely to make it better or more tolerable for either side, nor for those trapped in between them.
In short then, it is hard to see the Syrian case in a Just War doctrine light. Indeed, it seems like any U.S. action would be just war, not Just War, in its implications. Be that as it may, like most things in the real world (one where theory has to be applied, not just debated in the abstract), the present situation is much more complicated than mere words on a page can articulate. Perhaps all that can be done is that people of good will pray for peace, even as war clouds seem to gather yet again. That isn't a pacifistic nor militaristic view, nor is it a Republican or Democrat, or even a Old Mainline or New Mainline point of view. It is simply the right thing to do, no matter the ultimate decision or outcome. "Wars and rumors of wars" (Matthew 24:6) are part of the real world experience for those who are blessed as "peacemakers" (Matthew 5:9) in the Christian tradition.
No comments:
Post a Comment