CrossCurrents A Catholic Reflects on Faith in Our Times

# 161 Bernard F. Swain, Ph.D. www.CrossCurrents.us

Getting Serious About Peacemaking

Looks like it’s time for Catholics to get serious about peacemaking—to reflect on the moral dimensions of war and peace.

Last week I wrote about peace as a general moral imperative for Catholics, citing Jimmy Carter and Benedict XVI as leading peacemakers. This week I write about peace as an urgent current event.

It’s urgent because the current administration has now decided that “staying the course” in the Iraq war requires “a new way” to victory—namely, a war-escalating “surge” in U.S. troops.

In other words, we are at yet another turning point in the tragic tale of failure since “Mission Accomplished” was declared in 2003.

As Catholics, the key question is not whether the Iraq war is failing or succeeding. Our moral values are not based on winning and losing, for we know that might does not make right. If we object to this war, it is not because we are losing, but because it is wrong.

A leading Catholic columnist recently claimed that in 2003 he believed the US invasion of Iraq met Catholic moral standards for a “Just War,” and he still believes it. He did not, of course, cite Popes or Bishops in support of his claim, since the hierarchy’s opposition to invading Iraq has been virtually unanimous from the start. And no wonder.

To review what all Catholics should know: the traditional standards for the “Just War” include both (1) Conditions to justify Going to war and (2) Conditions to justify the Conduct of war.

(1) The Morality of Going to War demands several things:

First, there must be a Just Cause (such as self-defense). Americans have heard a handful of “reasons” for invading Iraq since 2002—none of which have proven true. It’s now clear our cause was mistaken. Like Bogart going to Casablanca for the waters, we must admit “we were misinformed.”

Second, war must be legally approved by the appropriate official body. But Congress has not declared war since Pearl Harbor, nor has this President ever asked for a declaration of war. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to delegate that power (read: dodge that constitutional responsibility) by “authorizing” the President to act on his own. Constitutionally, the US is not at war unless Congress declares war.

There is, of course, another relevant body, the UN Security Council—but America invaded Iraq over its objections.

Third, there must be appropriate good intent. I wonder: does anyone of us really know what U.S. intentions are in Iraq? Since all the alleged threats proved false, perhaps the vague “building democracy” is the only tenable answer—but that was NOT the stated intention America gave as the reason for invading in the first place!

Fourth, war must always be a last resort—in other words, there must be no alternatives left. Yet the record clearly shows the U.S. invaded before the real alternative—U.N. inspections—could be completed. (Of course, completed inspections would have disproved the WMD threat and discredited the US rationale for war—which makes me wonder: what hidden motive moved the administration to pre-empt the inspections?)

Fifth, there must be reasonable hope of success. This presumes, of course, that “success” is defined precisely enough to provide a basis for hope.

Sadly, this requirement exposes the current “surge” escalation for the moral blindness it is. More than three years after declaring “Mission Accomplished,” the U.S. administration has not only not succeeded—it has failed to even tell us what “success” means!

Such moral blindness grows from a willful refusal to learn the lesson of past moral failures. To many thoughtful Catholics, those lessons are painfully obvious. Let me cite the three chief lessons.

A. The lesson of Vietnamization. Richard Nixon won the 1968 election by promising it a “secret plan” to end the war in Vietnam and secure “peace with honor.” That plan turned out to be “Vietnamization”—the strategy to turn responsibility for peacekeeping over to the South Vietnamese themselves by training security forces to control the insurgency. Sound familiar?

“Vietnamization” continued for five years, put the burden of security on the shoulders of an incompetent puppet government, required continued escalation (including the “Christmas bombing” of Hanoi and the invasion of neighboring Cambodia—today that would mean Iran and Syria) and ended two years later with the ignominious evacuation of U.S. personnel as that puppet government fell to the rebels and their North Vietnamese allies.

This history begs the question: why would anyone attempt the same doomed “Vietnamization” strategy in Iraq? Why would anyone blindly think it held any hope of success?

B. The lesson of Yugoslavia. Josip Broz Tito was the most benign of Communist dictators, yet he held the diverse fragments under his control together in a unified “Yugoslavia” orderly enough to host the 1984 Sarajevo Olympics. But once he died, those fragments broke apart, and it took ten years of terror, war, ethnic cleansing, and foreign intervention before order was restored in the new forms of Bosnia/Herzegovina, Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, and Macedonia.

Iraq, of course, is only a “nation” because western powers imposed unity nearly 100 years ago. Any observer can see that Saddam’s brutal regime was the only thing holding the pieces together. His great fall, like Humpty Dumpty’s, may well mean that all the President’s men can never put the pieces back together again.

In other words, invading Iraq has probably destroyed Iraq. Where was the hope of success?

C. The “Liberation” lesson. The moral of the story from Vietnam, Yugoslavia, and from countless other rebellious descendants of colonized peoples from Northern Ireland to Palestine is clear: conflicts rooted in the struggle for “liberation” cannot be resolved by force of arms. They involve profound cultural, ethnic, religious, and historical dynamics that must be dealt with by other means. In a word, for conflicts like these, you cannot make peace by making war. Any hope of military success is based on moral blindness

(2) But even if invading Iraq had been justified, the Just War tradition demands two more Standards for Morality in Conducting War.

First, war’s destruction must never be indiscriminate: “military necessity” cannot justify harming non-combatants. Yet more than 100,000 non-combatants have died because America invaded Iraq—and more die every day we remain. Since we started this war, those deaths are our moral responsibility. How can we justify continuing a conflict where innocent deaths so horrendously outstrip our own troop casualties?

Second, war’s conduct always requires “proportionality” between the good being accomplished and the damage done. In Iraq, the “good” we seek is pathetically vague after four years of flip-flopping rationales, but even the catch-all called “building democracy in the Middle East” fails in the face of facts: the prospects for peace and democracy in the region are now worse because of the U.S. invasion. Clearly, invading Iraq has incubated a new generation of terrorists, has damaged U.S. support and prestige both in the region and among our allies, has emboldened radical regimes like the Iran and Syria, and has even provoked an accelerated nuclear threat. In 2003, Pope John-Paul II warned that invading Iraq would destabilize the region. He was right, and now his prophetic voice haunts us. How can any thinking believer argue that invading Iraq has done more good than harm?

The grim moral tally: on ALL SEVEN moral standards of Catholic Just War Tradition, the US invasion of Iraq proves to be unjust, unlawful, and immoral.

The Just War Theory is one of the glories of Catholic social doctrine. Catholics are not required to follow it, but the only other Catholic option is pacifism.

Sadly, the Just War Theory has never prevented or stopped any war (and has sometimes been abused as a phony rationale). But within the last century it has grown in its power to make people stop and think and subject war-making to moral criticism.

I can only hope and pray that if today’s Catholics get serious about holding U.S. war policy to our tough moral standards, tomorrow’s Catholics will see the day when Americans finally stop their government from an unjust, unlawful, immoral war—and peace breaks out!

© Bernard F. Swain PhD 2006

Send Your Comments and Questions to bfswain@juno.com

Dr. Swain’s opinions do not represent the views of this parish or any other official body.

Bernie Swain has devoted more than 30 years to adult spiritual formation in dioceses in the US, Canada, and France. Since 1991 he has maintained a private practice as trainer, teacher, and consultant to leaders in parishes and other religious organizations. He holds degrees in theology and political science from Holy Cross, Harvard, The University of Paris, and The University of Chicago.

His writings include Liberating Leadership (Harper & Row, 1986) and more than 200 articles in periodicals such as The National Catholic Reporter, Commonweal, The Miami Herald, The Catholic Free Press, The Pilot, Harvard Theological Review, and Liturgy.

A lifelong layperson, he lives in Boston with his wife and three children. Visit his website at:

http://www.CrossCurrents.us

CrossCurrents

Is a weekly subscription service for parish websites.

Individual Subscriptions are also available.

For Information, contact bfswain@juno or call 617-282-0183