Jimmy Carter and Just War Theory
The Sunday morning news programs were reporting that former President Jimmy Carter had written an op-ed piece in the New York Times. A devout Christian, Carter was arguing that the potential war in Iraq did not fulfill the requirements of the "Just War Theory." After reading the rather short piece, I am left wondering why no one was able to persuade the former president to re-work his ideas rather than embarrass himself with a rather pedestrian set of arguments. Either Carter does not understand Just War Theory, or he is being deliberately deceptive.
Carter's first argument is that a majority of religious leaders are opposed to the war. Of course this is not really a self-contained argument at all, it is rather an appeal to authority. Perhaps, Carter is thinking about Pope John Paul II's stand against this war, given that Catholic history provides the theoretical basis for the Just War Theory. Given Pope John Paul II's experience as religious leader in an oppressed Poland, the Pope's words should be given serious consideration. However, the Pope was against the first Gulf War that freed the Kuwaiti people from foreign domination and the War in Kosovo that prevented further ethnic cleansing. The Pope was well-intentioned and wrong on both counts. Although there are questions about the precise role of Pope Pius XII in World War II, it is obvious in retrospect that the Pope should have done more to use his moral authority to oppose Hitler. In the 1980s, the national Catholic leadership in the United States opposed the deployment of intermediate nuclear missiles in Europe and even the idea of "deterrence." This does not represent a distinguished record of judgment on geopolitical matters.
Carter notes that some "spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention" support the war, but then disparagingly suggests that they are "greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or final days, theology." He does not explain why they were wrong, just implies that a commitment to Israel makes it difficult to be objective about the matter. Given Carter's own relationship with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, would it be fair to dismiss Carter's subsequent arguments? Surely, Carter could have developed "drive-by" argument without hanging around to present a complete case.
Carter correctly points out that to be just, a war must represent the last resort. Carter claims, "it is obvious that clear alternatives to war exist." In a metaphysical sense, this is always true. Acquiescence to a dictator is certainly always a way to prevent the immediate prospect of war. The question is more complex than flippantly presented by Carter. Waiting until the last resort simply means that all realistic efforts to resolve the issue should be exhausted. Is there any question, but that after 12 years Saddam Hussein will not voluntarily disarm, especially when he hasn't when faced with over a quarter of a million allied troops? Delay would probably ease the pressure and make Hussein's compliance even less likely.
Latest Articles