Military Roles and Relationships Part 4

     “No sir. I’m sorry we cannot do that. It would be immoral,” the words hung there in the air, generating a scowl on the General’s face and a rapid beating of my heart. I’d run into one of the great challenges of armed conflict; deciding that a plan, though likely to succeed, was morally unacceptable. In Western thought we bin wars as “Just” or “Un-Just” based on centuries of thought both secular and theological. Using the term “just” raises significant challenges for Christian military leaders and planners as they seek to serve God and the state in desperate circumstances. Commanders agonize over the words that comprise their orders. Subordinates read orders and transform print into actions. Actions they undertake in circumstances often filled with uncertainty, violence and chaos. In moments of intense pressure and rushing pandemonium subordinate leaders must somehow divine the right decision.

     The term “just war,” one chosen to bring clarity and support for armed conflict developed over centuries with key input from such luminaries as Thomas Aquinas and Augustine. The combative nature of monarchs and the chaos released by the darker impulses of soldiers during war shocked theologians. Thinkers sought to limit bellicose monarchs of the Middle Ages and keep the carnage of armed conflict in check; both admirable goals. Part of the designed framework included justifiable reasons for going to war; hence the term “just war.” As a monarch, if your reasons aligned with those in the doctrine then your war was considered just and those who participated incurred no guilt through participation or support. This did not mean that you could not sin while in war, just that if you waged war within the developed boundaries you were considered just. All of this seems reasonable. After all we ought to limit the occurrence of war and its inherent brutality. I grapple with the term just and its effect on the disposition and decision making of participants.

     Contrary to what we may believe, humans seem to have a built-in (by God I believe) resistance to taking the life of other humans. For example, during my first tour in Iraq an entire unit drove through an ambush without returning fire; something senior leadership did not appreciate. In fact, the entire chain of command stood in front of the CJTF-7 commander explaining their soldiers lack of action. Once ignited and stoked the fires of anger required to kill others are not easily quenched. The more inhuman the enemy, the easier it is to slay them. And in this fundamental truth lies my problem with the term “just war.”

     If I am just in my cause, my enemy must be somehow unjust. If they are unjust or iniquitous, then I do the country, the world, and perhaps the Lord a favor by extinguishing them. And if I’m doing the Lord a favor, then killing more at once is acceptable. Additionally, if we employ questionable tactics to prosecute an unjust war then perhaps they are acceptable given the dire circumstances of war. You see the idea of a “just war” leads to many problems in execution. The chaos and confusion of war is fraught with difficulty enough without adding moral murkiness through the label of a “just war.” Perhaps we need to revisit our terminology.

     The generally agreed upon principles of a just war are; having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used. It is the first principle that creates problems, a just cause. Humans have spilled copious amounts of ink trying to delineate a just cause, so I’ll add a bit more. I do not find comfort in the term “just cause.” Perhaps we ought to explore a phrase such as an “unavoidable war”. Some wars erupt due to forces neither side is able or willing to contain. There are times when social and political forces in nations or a region drive conflicts. The U.S. Civil War might be considered an “unavoidable war.” Of course this phrase contains various pitfalls, as do all such phrases. Another phrase we might consider, “a war thrust upon us.” This phrase seeks to describe a war of aggression; WW II for example. In WW II Japan and Germany adopted aggressive political systems that resulted in years of conflict. We might use a phrase employed by the United Nations, “peace enforcement.” This describes actions taken to bring hostilities between waring nations to a close, normally against either belligerents will. Peace enforcement is a more aggressive version of peace keeping and frequently includes hostile actions where peace keeping normally does not. It seems to me that these three phrases might help us navigate the turbid and turbulent waters of armed conflict without stumbling into the pitfall of making one side just over another.

     When we as a nation elect to send our armed forces into combat we must seek to not only equip them with the best arms and armaments available, we must also see to equip them mentally and morally. Often moral failure on the field of battle stems from a lack of preparation and practice. It is true that you will execute in war the same way you execute in practice. We need to carefully think through how we talk about and prepare for the moral component of war. When we label ourselves as just and the enemy as unjust, we open the door for decisions which civilized nations would find abhorrent, even in the manifestly uncivilized business of waging war. I think it is time for us to reconsider our phraseology, seeking to improve on the “just war” theory without discarding its better components.