Donovan Bramwell's piece in Sundays Opinion of the Post Register was deeply flawed for many reasons, not the least of which was his groundless basis for evaluating this war and the others he files in the same category as "immoral." Where is his basis for evaluating any war as moral or immoral? As far as he informs us, his readers, his criteria are completely subjective. Given his method, any individual with another personal criteria could come up with a completely different list! Fortunately, our president and his advisors consult a long established precedent, developed over centuries of reflection and practice in the Christian West, the criteria of the Just War Theory. It is a regular part of the course work at our military colleges (e.g., VMI and West Point) and schools of diplomacy (e.g., Georgetown University). When we use these objective criteria, we come out with a completely different conclusion than Mr. Bramwell:

1. A just war can be waged only after non-violent options have been exhausted - after 12 years of noncompliance, 17 resolutions violated with impunity, and the dictator playing a scornful shell game with weapons of mass destruction, George Bush has, indeed, exhausted all reasonable non-violent options. It is the only option left which the dictator will understand. The patience we see in George Bush is a patience born of strength and confidence, not the patience of the pacifist, born of fear and confusion.

2. A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority - justice is not served by actions taken by individuals or groups; governments duly constituted are deemed legitimate. This clearly excludes - as it was meant to do - bandit groups like al-Qaeda, Hamas, or Hezbullah. George Bush, as president of a nation he is sworn to defend, is just in prosecuting this war.

3. A just war must redress actual wrongs suffered - there must be real injustice perpetrated, real crimes against a people committed, before a war is considered biblical and just. Here 9/11 and all of the previous, attendant crimes serve as justification. Whether we speak of the 1st Gulf War in '91, the 1st WTC bombing in '92, the bombings of our embassies in Africa, or the bombing of The Cole in Yemen, the USA has suffered actual wrongs from the murky world of the terrorist, including the connections Saddam Hussein has to them. Additionally, it is not difficult to extrapolate from these that these terrorists will continue to perpetrate crimes.

4. A just war must be undertaken with a reasonable chance of success - casualties incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. All over the Muslim world we see this principle violated. Saddam Hussein has no chance of success in this war. Nor do the group of bandts and pirates who constitute the terrorists. Rather, they needlessly expose their citixens and followers to danger and death. We, however, have every hope of success as the most powerful nation on the face of the earth.

5. A just war must have as its goal the increase of peace - the peace established afterwards must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed had the war not been fought. All of Afganistan, for instance, confesses that they are better off now than under the Taliban. Who doubts that Iraq, too, will not celebrate in the streets 2 minutes after Saddam Hussein is dead? The peace to follow this war will be immeasurably greater than that which exists under this cruel dictatorship now.

6. The violence used must be proportional to the injury suffered - this is a guard against retribution and vegeance for it own sake. It is meant to restrain a response to the goals of redressing the wrongs perpetrated, even as George Bush is doing in combatting worldwide terrorism. War was declared upon us, and the violence we are executing is that which will insure our safety and security.

7. A just war must discriminate between combatants and noncombatants insofar as it is possible to avoid them in attacks upon military targets - innocent civilians will be killed in warfare, but the just ruler will avoid deliberately targeting them. Saddam Hussein not only deliberately targets enemy civilian populations, but he targets his own people! He has used poison gas on the Kurds in the North of Iraq and he deliberately surrounds military targets with civilians. We, however, go to great effort and expense to avoid civilian casualties, to the point of financing sophisticated, expensive "smart bombs" which minimize what is euphemistaclly called colateral damage. Briefly, then, we see the legitimate, biblical basis for a just war and the contrast between ourselves and our enemies as we line up on these principles. Who is just? Who is unjust? Who is striving with might and main to prosecute a war of principle, and who is the monster and unjust coward? I would invite Mr. Bramwell - or any critic of our administration's course of action - to articulate a clear moral basis for their rationale. Rambling, subjective feelings are no basis for critiquing a nation's moral framework for conducting war. This is especially true for someone like Mr. Bramwell who has aspired to political office! Fortunately for our nation, we are being led by an administration which understands and practices the principles of a just war.

BACK TO TOP