Theos-Talk Archives (March 2003 Message tt00211)

Just War -- or a Just War? 

By Jimmy Carter 

New York Times| Op-Ed 

Sunday 09 March 2003 

Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign policy, 
reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two 
centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have 
been predicated on basic religious principles, respect for 
international law, and alliances that resulted in wise decisions and 
mutual restraint. Our apparent determination to launch a war against 
Iraq, without international support, is a violation of these 
premises. 

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by 
international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the 
principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially 
unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards. This is an 
almost universal conviction of religious leaders, with the most 
notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist 
Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel 
based on eschatological, or final days, theology. 

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria. 

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent 
options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear 
alternatives to war exist. These options -- previously proposed by 
our own leaders and approved by the United Nations -- were outlined 
again by the Security Council on Friday. But now, with our own 
national security not directly threatened and despite the 
overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the world, 
the United States seems determined to carry out military and 
diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of 
civilized nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan 
is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless 
Iraqi population within the first few hours of an invasion, with the 
purpose of so damaging and demoralizing the people that they will 
change their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and 
safe during the bombardment. 

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and 
noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise 
accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. 
Franks, commander of American forces in the Persian Gulf, has 
expressed concern about many of the military targets being near 
hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes. 

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. 
Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to 
tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing. 

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the 
society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in 
the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 
can still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve 
regime change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps 
occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For 
these objectives, we do not have international authority. Other 
members of the Security Council have so far resisted the enormous 
economic and political influence that is being exerted from 
Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure 
to get the necessary votes or else a veto from 
Russia, France and China. Although Turkey may still be enticed into 
helping us by enormous financial rewards and partial future control 
of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has 
at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of concern. 

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what 
exists. Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it 
is quite possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will 
destabilize the region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize 
our security at home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, 
the United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable 
institution for world peace. 

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such 
a great deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt 
sympathy and friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, 
even from formerly antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; 
increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have brought 
international trust in our country to its lowest level in memory. 
American stature will surely decline further if we launch a 
war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the presence 
and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all 
United Nations resolutions -- with war as a final option -- will 
enhance our status as a champion of peace and justice. 

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is chairman of 
the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace 
Prize.