Just War in Iraq
by Robert P. George, December 2002


Over the past few months, a number of Christian leaders -- Protestant and Catholic -- have questioned whether a war in Iraq can be justified. They have expressed many concerns, but three of the most important are these:  (1) Can military action be morally legitimate if it is pre-emptive?  (2) Is it morally permissible to use force to remove a tyrannical and aggressive regime from power, as opposed to merely disarming it?  (3) May the United States legitimately lead a coalition against Saddam Hussein if the United Nations refuses, in the end, to authorize the use of force to remove or disarm his regime?

The religious leaders raising these questions are not pacifists. They do not suggest that the use of military force is never justifiable.  Rather, they argue that a pre-emptive war in Iraq waged by the United States and its allies with the goal of removing Saddam from power does not satisfy the requirements of "just war theory."

It was by explicit appeal to the body of principles comprising the theory of "just war" that President Bush's father justified the use of military force to evict Saddam from Kuwait in the Gulf War of 1991.  The current President Bush also makes his case for using force against Saddam by invoking these principles.

The debate, then, is not about whether just war principles ought to guide our government's decision as to whether to go to war; rather, it concerns the application of just war principles to the case at hand.  President Bush maintains that these principles authorize -- even require -- the use of force to prevent Saddam's acquisition and possible use of weapons even more frightening than those he has used in the past.  The religious leaders who oppose war insist that they do not.


Who is right?

Let's first examine the question of pre-emptive military action.

Although the medieval architects of just war theory held that punishing past aggression is among the legitimate purposes of war, most modern authorities on the subject rule out retributive justifications for resorting to arms. The modern tradition holds that war may be waged only for defensive purposes, and then only as a last resort. President Bush's critics insist that pre-emptive action cannot be defensive, and that prior to another actual act of aggression by Saddam just war principles limit the United States to diplomatic, rather than military, options.

In my judgment, the critics are mistaken. Pre-emptive action is "defensive" when it is motivated by a reasonable belief that a proven aggressor is in the process of equipping himself with the military means to carry out further aggression with impunity. Few people doubt that Saddam is seeking to enhance his chemical and biological arsenal, and (even more ominously) to acquire nuclear weapons. Few deny that he will, if successful, use these weapons to terrorize other nations in the region and force them to bend to his will.

Bill Clinton observed as far back as 1998 that Saddam's quest to dominate the Middle East by acquiring weapons of mass destruction is an active threat to U.S. allies and vital interests. According to Joseph Lieberman, "every day Saddam remains in power is a day of danger for the Iraqi people, for Iraq's neighbors, for the American people, and for the world."  ohn McCain says that Saddam "is a clear and present danger to the United States of America."

If Presidents Bush and Clinton and Senators Lieberman and McCain are right about the gravity of the threat posed by Saddam, then pre-emptive military action against his regime is in no way excluded by just war doctrine.  Indeed, it would be perverse to suppose that force may not be used against an aggressive tyrant such as Saddam until after he has armed himself with weapons of mass destruction.  By that point it would be too late.  His threat to use, say, nuclear arms against Israel, Kuwait, and other nations would deter any effective military response to his aggression.

How about the morality of using military force to remove a regime, as opposed merely to disarming it?

In a letter to President Bush, Bishop Wilton Gregory, President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, asked:  "Should not a distinction be drawn between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government's existence?"

The answer is that the relevance of the distinction depends entirely on the circumstances.  There is no absolute moral principle forbidding the use of force to dismantle a tyrannical regime.  The question requires prudential judgment.  If a regime's murderous aggression cannot be prevented without removing the regime, then force may licitly be used, assuming the other requirements of justice in warfare are observed, to remove it.

Finally, let's turn to the question of who may properly authorize and carry out a military action to disarm or remove Saddam.

A traditional criterion of just war is that proper authority must wage it.  According to some religious leaders and other critics of the President, the United States and its allies, unless authorized by the United Nations, are not a legitimate authority for waging war to destroy or disarm the Iraqi regime.  They insist that the international community, operating through the United Nations, alone has the authority to use force in Iraq.

I will not here address claims that some on the Left have made about U.S. obligations under international law.  Suffice it to say that nothing in just war theory places unique authority to prevent aggression in the hands of the "international community" or international organizations such as the United Nations.  Of course, President Bush has acted prudently in building international support and obtaining a United Nations resolution requiring Saddam to abandon his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and submit to unconditional inspections.  However, should the United Nations decline or fail to enforce its just demands for unconditional inspections and Iraqi disarmament, the United States and her allies have every right to protect themselves and other potential victims of Saddam's aggression.

Catholic scholar George Weigel has observed that just war theory, properly understood, is part of a larger theory of statecraft.  Its principles guide political leaders as to when they must refrain from using military means to achieve their ends, but they also give guidance as to when they are morally obligated to resort to arms for the sake of preventing or resisting aggression.

The United States Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders have rightly reminded the President and the nation that war can be justified only as a last resort.  But we must be clearheaded about what this principle means in the current circumstance:  If Saddam submits to truly unconditional inspections, and if United Nations inspectors are able to eliminate his illegal weapons and demolish his weapons manufacturing infrastructure, then an invasion of Iraq would be unnecessary, and therefore unjustifiable.  If.

People of every faith should unite in prayer that the people of Iraq and of the United States and her allies will be spared what Lincoln called the "mighty scourge of war."  At the same time, given Saddam's record of aggression and duplicity, no one should assume that military force will not, in the end, prove necessary.  It is a tragic fact of human affairs that sometimes statesmen cannot fulfill their moral duties to prevent aggression and resist tyranny relying exclusively on diplomatic or other non-military means.  In these circumstances-though, to be sure, only then-just war theory supposes that the decision to fight is not merely optional; it is morally required.

Back to Top | Previous | Press Coverage List | September 11 Challenge Archives | Search