Why “Justice” is a Bad Idea.

The following is a response to the Grand Inquisitor’s last post. Let me be clear at the outset that I do not know if what I am arguing against is what GI believes. I simply want to express a great worry I have with a quite similar sounding rhetoric that flows through the war discourse of American Christians.

Let me begin by completely showing my hand: I think violence in defense of justice is always a bad idea. I understand that the majority of Christendom has disagreed with me on this point, and preferred a standpoint known as Just War Theory, which says that violence in defense of justice is sometimes allowable, but only under certain circumstances. Of course, I make no pretense to disguise the fact that I think this standpoint to be completely irreconcilable with the path of the cross required of all disciples of Jesus Christ, and I take it as a given that the New Testament represents a pacifist standpoint from Matthew all the way to Revelation.

That being said, if I can’t get my wish that we all become Christian pacifists (I know, I know– it ain’t happening), I would instead wish that more Americans actually WERE Just War Theorists. It seems to me that, instead, American Christians have just been using just war terminology without actually applying just war criteria. Let’s face it, the US military is the only military on earth with a philosophy department, and not only that, but one that is really enamored of just war theory, but yet, in practice, we have not, in our history, actually been very successful at preventing US involvement unjust wars.

Now, just war theory is the only theory that even comes close to providing a framework in which one might justify war in a non-nationalistic way. So if we’re using the rhetoric, but have lost the substance, we are in serious trouble in the justification department.

Let me give an example: one of the aims of just war theory is to fight a limited war. Now, in the actual course of fighting US wars, the sacrifices that soldiers make on the battlefield are met with the following rhetoric: “All right, boys. We got to fight and we have to win for all those who died before us. To honor their memory.” Sacrifice demands more sacrifice, which in turn demands more sacrifice. This becomes a real problem for just war theorists, because it quickly makes wars unlimited (it also is problematic for Christians, because once you realize that war is a sacrificial system, and that the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is the end of all sacrificial systems, the prospect of even going to war becomes problematic).

This same worry about limited warfare is recapitulated in the rhetoric concerning “stabilization.” We bombed Iraq to stabilize things. Once things actually ended up destabilizing because of our attack, we sent more troops in to “stabilize” Iraq. This led to more troop surges. The problem is, that we seem to have lost our eye on the limited nature of the war. Let’s face it, what we are being asked to do as a nation is keep repeatedly trying a strategy that seems to have done the exact opposite of what we were told by the spin doctors. Now I know that we sent so many tons of military machinery in Iraq that we cannot now leave quickly without leaving tanks and other war machines behind for insurgents to pick up. But that does not alleviate the necessity for the military to spend every waking moment they are there trying to bring those machines back ASAP, or better yet, destroying them. If this is, in fact, what GI was arguing for (instead of another troop surge or a sustained military presence in Iraq) I could not agree with him more.

The same thing could be said about other just war criteria: there never seem to be any worries expressed about non-combatant immunity (a facet of Just War Theory that is continually violated by the US military), or proportionality of means (US use of bunker-busters? That’s a violation of proportionality of means), or right intention (the whole argument that runs “okay, we went for the wrong reasons, but we need to be faithful citizens and follow through anyway” is a violation of that), or reasonable hope of success, or the like. In fact, whenever I hear critics bring up these just war criteria (again, following the vast majority of Christian tradition), American Christians seem to be the first ones to rise to the defense of the way the US military is doing things. My argument is simply: hell, if we’re willing to give up 1000+ years of Christian tradition by arguing against just war criteria, why not move in a direction that’s more Scriptural (i.e. pacifism)?

If American Christians actually were grabbing ahold of the substance of Just War Theory, I would find much more common ground with them. We would both be arguing for disarmament (the US military is in too many places and has too many death machines– we need to disarm), purer intentions (Iraq isn’t public enemy no. 1 on the human rights violations list– North Korea is. Then Iran. Then Sudan. Then Saudi Arabia. Then a bunch of former Soviet bloc countries. Iraq is like, 35th on the list. We went to war with Iraq because it was politically advantageous for us, and yeah, they have some humanitarian problems. We won’t go to war with North Korea, because, even though it would be top choice if we were really serious about going to war to defend the powerless, it’s politically disadvantageous to us), noncombatant immunity (we need to stop supporting death squads in South America and killing Iraqi civilians) and the like. Instead, American Christians have abandoned just war theory, and I seem to find them on the opposite side of the fence from pacifists like myself.

What has taken the place of Just War Theory is often called Christian realism. So far as I can tell, Christian realism in the end either justifies whatever American nationalism demands in its own self interest, or becomes a form of utilitarianism that tries to justify the use of immoral means to accomplish good ends. Rule out the utilitarian option (for what I hope are obvious reasons), and this means that we can now no longer appeal to any standard by which a non-American could call our wars just. No pretense about objectivity there– we made up the system to justify whatever happens to benefit us as a nation. The church becomes a puppet of the state. We play the role of Caesar’s lapdog instead of speaking out against his sins. The fact that the church seems to be unable to find any corruption in the US military shows just how compromised we are. We have given up our prophetic voice.

It seems to me to be far more faithful to both Scripture and to Christian tradition to say the following: The US should not have troops stationed in Iraq. The US should not have troops stationed in South America. The US should not send troops to Iran (this is a grievance I have against all candidates currently running).

The Stamina for Justice

CNN and other newsgroups are faithful to keep us abreast of almost everything that’s happening in Iraq and the Middle East. Some of the writers at Rolling Stone, for example, would have you believe that it’s in our best interest to pull out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Many of their articles point out the ways in which America’s presence there has been detrimental both to the Iraqi people and to our sense of national identity. I don’t doubt that companies appointed by congressional leaders have made decisions more from personal greed than concern for justice (Blackwater, Halliburton).

As the election season approaches, however, it is critical for the voting public to remember that calamities resulting from incompetence or malevolence DO NOT mitigate the real responsibility we have to pursue justice for our neighbors. I do not suggest that America’s role in this task is tantamount to cutting and pasting bits of our culture on top of theirs so that it is more to our liking, or even trying to establish an Iraqi democracy (a different discussion).

But you can’t argue with the facts. Some of the most prominent manifestations of Islam in Iraq are utterly evil and should be opposed with unflinching resolve. These woman—professors, doctors, and mothers—are being mutilated, raped, and murdered.

Our presence in Iraq shouldn’t dictate your voting decision, but it IS something to keep in mind. As a nation, we have the power to stand up for the defenseless and poor in IRAQ. We’re not the world’s babysitter, but we ARE responsible to the people of Basra, Baghdad, and more. If we ditch them in the midst of the fight because our public image has been given a black eye, then MORE will die in the power vacuum, and their blood will be on our hands.