Thursday, October 08th, 2009

Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan & Just War

Both the prophets Isaiah and Micah foresaw this great day, “And He will judge between the nations, and will render decisions for many peoples; and they will hammer their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nation will not lift up sword against nation. And never again will they learn war.” (Isaiah 2:4)  Until then, though, Yeshua described the reality, “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars…For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.” (Mt. 24:6-7)

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States remains the sole military power in the world, and since 9/11 the United States has lead invasions into Afghanistan, Iraq and now possibly Iran.  As the Afghanistan war enters its ninth year and the Iraq war its seventh year, questions arise from numerous sources as to the wisdom, viability and justification for the invasion of other countries with the concomitant loss of life and destruction of property.  This certainly becomes even more important with the potential attack against another nation with potentially more far-reaching consequences.  For us, possibly, a larger question exists: are these actions and potential actions supportable from Scripture and our religious communities?

Both Judaism and Christianity historically have wrestled with the reality of war and how to respond.  Both have come to similar conclusions that actually lead to modern Western perspectives behind war.  Until relatively recently the Jewish perspective evolved from a community not directly involved in warfare.  Following the unsuccessful revolts against the Romans in the first two centuries of the Common Era, Jews lived as outsiders in numerous empires and kingdoms, and while affected by warfare around them, Jews played no military role.  That, of course, changed in the modern era.  Still, the Rabbis examined the Scriptures and determined there were three types of war - 1) obligatory; 2) optional; 3) pre-emptive.  Joshua’s invasion is considered obligatory but was limited to the removal of the Canaanite states.  Defending one’s people from attack is also considered obligatory.  King David’s expansionist wars were seen as optional and could only be justified by divine approval through the determination of the Sanhedrin and the High Priest - no longer applicable because of the demise of both institutions.  Finally, the Rabbis concluded that a pre-emptive war may be justified depending upon the circumstances. 

The Rabbis also made a number of interesting rulings with respect to the conduct of war - 1) clerics should be exempt from service (I Kings 15:23); 2) defense is a duty (Ex. 22:1); 3) proportionality of response (Ex. 22:2); 4) defense of a third party (Deut. 22:25-27); 5) compassion to the enemy (I Kings 20:31); 6) protection of the environment (Deut. 20:19); 7) offers of peace (Deut. 20:10).

Christianity took a very different tack in the beginning.  Unlike Jews who began as a national group and who continued to be considered a nation without territory for most of their history, Christians comprised numerous people groups incorporated within the Roman Empire.  Based upon Yeshua’s teachings (Mt. 5:38-41) and example (Mt. 26:51-52), most early Christians were pacifists and were barred from serving in the military.  According to the church father, Tertullian, a Christian who did serve in the military could be excommunicated from the church.  But beginning in the third century, these views began to change as Christianity became more popular and influential in the Roman Empire. The turning point came with the integration of Christianity into the Empire through Constantine.  Now, the Empire’s business was Christianity’s business, which included military conflicts.  First, Bishop Ambrose from Milan (a former Roman military leader), and then, St. Augustine, fashioned the doctrine of “Just War.”  Both were influenced by Plato and Cicero, who had written on the subject long before.  A “Just War” must be 1) for just cause; 2) for just intention; 3) as a last resort; 4) initiated by formal declaration; 5) have limited objectives; 6) conducted by proportionate means; and 7) not target non-combatants.  The “Just War” doctrine served as the basis for the United Nations charter on war. 

Let’s now turn our attention to Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran.  The United States lead invasion against Afghanistan followed the 9/11 attacks against the United States.  The Al Qaeda terrorist network, responsible for 9/11, was based in Afghanistan.  The U.S. requested that Afghanistan expel and turn over those responsible for the attacks.  They refused, and the U.S. and allied forces attacked.  There is almost no question that the invasion was justified utilizing both Jewish sources and the Christian “just war” doctrine.  The continuing war, however, does raise significant questions.  What began as a war of defense, i.e., responding to an attack concocted and/or launched from Afghanistan, has evolved into the prevention of the Taliban from regaining control of the country.  Does the Taliban return to power directly endanger the United States?  Are there other overriding just causes for preventing their return? 

With respect to Iraq, the Bush Administration attempted to extend both UN protocols and the “Just War” doctrine to cover a pre-emptive strike.  Interestingly, Jewish sources support pre-emptive war in certain situations.  The Administration argued that Iraq was holding weapons of mass destruction in contravention of UN orders, and that such weapons constituted an imminent threat to the US and its allies.  Assuming Iraq contained such weapons, without a concrete threat by Iraq to use them, it is questionable as to whether the “Just War” doctrine or Jewish views on preemption supported the invasion.  However, the apparent lack of such weapons makes the question moot.  The invasion of Iraq was not supported by either religious community’s long standing definitions for legitimate war.

Iran raises a new and different threat.  Unlike Iraq, Iran’s leadership continually threatens the existence of Israel, a long time ally of the U.S.  Iran admits the pursuit of nuclear power but denies its purpose is for the construction of weaponry.  Is Iran believable, and, if not, does their manufacture of nuclear weapons grant just cause for a military attack?  Had Iraq actually contained weapons of mass destruction in keeping with most intelligence services’ views, an invasion of Iran, while potentially catastrophic, could well be supported by a legitimate use of the preemption doctrine.  This is certainly true of Israel and possibly the U.S. as well.  It could also be argued because of Iran’s support of terrorist organizations that acquisition of nuclear capability could well lead to the transfer of nuclear materials to these organizations, also providing justification for a military attack to prevent Iran from acquiring them.  The issue becomes more complicated because of the mistaken intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.  Without a direct and imminent threat from Iran, once again the developed world is dependent upon intelligence assessments as to Iran’s capability and purposes.  In addition, an attack against Iran is likely to lead to a wider Middle East war.  Returning to the “Just War” doctrine, a military attack should be seen as a last resort.  It seems like the Obama Administration, the Israeli government and most of the West are following this course.  At this point our role should be to “pray for the peace of Jerusalem” and for the internal overthrow of the current Iranian regime. 

Jamie Cowen