As Charles Brown already notes in his summary of chapter 2 of The Revolution, Ron Paul raises the interesting issue of Christian just war theory. Citing Christian thinkers from Ambrose to Suarez Paul concludes that the war in Iraq fails to live up to the standards of just war theory.
Paul (Ron not Apostle) lays out three foundational principles:
1. An initial act of aggression in response to which a just war may be waged
2. All diplomatic solutions have been exhausted
3. War is undertaken by the proper authority
Paul’s book is short so he spends few words making his case how the Iraqi conflict fails to meet Christian standards. I am left with a number of questions.
1. Is a ever justified in the case when the act of aggression was against a third party? This was common within Christendom. Christian just war theory traditionally recognizes the possibility of a nation coming to the aid of other Christian peoples, nation, ect.
2. How has the age of mass terrorism impact our idea of just war? Augustine could not envision the consequence of a single terrorist carrying a dirty bomb killing thousands or even tens of thousands? How does this change how we look at preemptive wars? Does it?
3. Does Paul’s account fail to give a charitable reading to the motivations of the pro-war party?
I have great sympathy with the case Paul is making but finding it imprudent is different from declaring it a sin. Thoughts?
Good questions Bill. On your first question, I believe there would be cases when acts of aggression against sister nations might warrant a nation’s assistance in that instance. It’s interesting that you bring into your question the case of Christian nation coming to the aid of another Christian nation. When was the last time that motivation was ever cited? The Iraq invasion brings the same question to mind. Of what impact was our intervention in that country to our brothers and sisters in Christ, who were for all intents and purposes allowed freedom of their religion under Saddam’s largely secular rule?
I think we need to take a step back on your second question. First, your question of “mass terrorism”, I assume, is really about “mass destruction”. Wielding such has been much more the province of “civilized” nations than of ragtag guerrillas. Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden. Add to that the impact of such things as international sanctions that “civilized” nations wield to punish foreign leaders, but which only serves to starve or otherwise cause suffering on the part of a civilian populace. Second, we need to consider, in light of this first point, what motivates the actions of these terrorists and the fact that in their weakness they use the only tactics available to them. Ron Paul has repeatedly brought this point up and the typical response is that he’s “blaming America first” for terrorist attacks. What he’s blaming is an interventionist foreign policy that constantly meddles where it has no business. Add to that the dynamics of a rival religion and you have plenty of motivation on the part of the little ragtag nations to find any means possible to defend themselves. So does the fact of “mass terrorism” change how we look at preemptive war? No, but it should change our perspective on minding our own business. We used to believe that rival religions and political philosophies would be crushed under their own weight. That was Reagan’s stance with the Soviet Union. Why we can’t just leave the Islamic nations to the same fate would be a good question to explore. Rather than attempt to convert these nations to some utopian global democratic vision, treat them as a mission field rather than a battlefield.
On your third question, I think Paul has been more than charitable in his advocacy against the pro-war interventionists, even in the face of outright ridicule and unfair treatment. I’m not sure where he was calling our imprudent foreign policy an outright sin (I don’t recall that from reading the book), but I would venture to say that imprudence is a pretty mild description for what our political leaders on both sides of the aisle are doing in not only the foreign policy arena, but in all aspects that run roughshod over Constitutional provisions.
[...] in here to answer these three questions posed by Bill Chellis: 1. Is a ever justified in the case when the [...]
For anybody that’s interested, here is a link where you can find .mp3 of a (Reformed, Christian) debate about whether Iraq meets the just war standard.
Personally, I am with R.L. Dabney in defining a just war as a defensive war.
Can you only defend yourself, or can you defend your allies? Should the U.S. have ever have entered Europe in WWII?
There is a distinction between “preemptive” and “preventive” initiation of war, and as I understand it, most just war theorists allow that preemptive war can easily be just, and some allow that even preventive can sometimes be just.
An excellent question and I grant just war theory has made allowances for the distinction you suggest.
I take Dabney’s view that only a defensive war is truly just or necessary. Coming to the aid of allies who have been attacked is certainly just. The question is whether having such allies is wise. When did the wisdom of the founders become obsolete for foreign policy?