|
||||||||||||||
 |
 |
| Open Letter from Lay Catholics to President Bush | |
|
Dear Mr. President: Religious believers are not of a single mind when it comes to the difficult question of what to do about the threat posed to the United States and other nations by the regime of Saddam Hussein. We are divided not so much between communities of faith as within them. Devout Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and people of other faiths can be found on both sides of the question whether military action is the correct course at this time. We are Catholic citizens who wish to contribute to your deliberation of the question. Recently, Bishop Wilton D. Gregory wrote to you on behalf of the 60-member Administrative Committee [of] the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, to raise “serious questions about the moral legitimacy of any pre-emptive, unilateral use of military force to overthrow the government of Iraq.” Bishop Gregory’s questions are shaped by the tradition of just war theory that is accepted by faithful Catholics as well as by many Protestants, Jews, and other believers. They are indeed serious questions, and we hope and trust that you will give them the most careful consideration. However, we think it is important for you also to consider the arguments to be made in light of basic just war principles for the opposing position, namely, that pre-emptive and, if necessary, unilateral force can indeed be justified to remove the grave threat to peace and justice posed by the Iraqi dictatorship. The question is not whether our nation ought to be guided by just war principles in responding to the threat. Plainly it should be. As Bishop Gregory himself says, however, “[p]eople of good will may apply ethical principles and come to different prudential judgments, depending upon their assessment of the facts at hand and other issues.”* His letter makes clear that the Administrative Committee’s judgment that “pre-emptive, unilateral . . . force is difficult to justify at this time,” is based on a prudential assessment of “the facts that are known to us.” Bishop Gregory explores the application of just war principles in four areas: “just cause,” “legitimate authority,” “probability of success and proportionality,” and “norms governing the conduct of war.” Just cause. Here Bishop Gregory does not offer conclusions, but simply raises pointed questions. (1) Is there clear and adequate evidence of a direct connection between Iraq and the attacks of September 11th or clear and adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature? It seems to us relevant that (a) the Iraqi regime has amply proven its hostile intent and willingness to engage in aggression against Kuwait, Israel, and other foreign states, as well as its own minority populations; (b) the regime has acquired and used biological and chemical weapons against foreign and domestic enemies; (c) it has made determined efforts to increase its stockpile and enhance the lethal quality of its biological and chemical weapons, while also attempting to acquire nuclear arms; (d) it has resisted and confounded the efforts of duly constituted United Nations weapons inspection teams; (e) it is in material violation of 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions, designed to ensure that Iraq does not pose a threat to international peace and security; (f) it is plain that the regime is equipping itself for further aggression and attempting to develop the capability to blackmail its victims with credible threats of annihilation. (2) Is it wise to dramatically expand traditional moral and legal limits on just cause to include preventive or preemptive uses of military force to overthrow threatening regimes or to deal with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction? Just war principles do not exclude the preemptive uses of military force against a proven aggressor who is planning or equipping himself for further aggression. No “expansion” of traditional moral and legal limits is necessary or being called for. The question is one of prudential judgment: In light of the likely horrific consequences of Saddam’s acquisition of weapons of mass destruction, is the use of force the only effective way to defend his potential victims? If you conclude in view of all of the facts that force is necessary, then we believe that you are justified, and indeed required, to act. (The proposition sometimes asserted—though not by Bishop Gregory—that preventive or preemptive military action can never be defensive within the meaning of just war doctrine, is simply erroneous.) (3) Should not a distinction be made between efforts to change unacceptable behavior of a government and efforts to end that government’s existence? We believe that the relevance of this distinction depends upon the circumstances. Again, the question is one of prudence. If a regime’s murderous aggression cannot be prevented without changing the regime, then nothing in the theory of just war excludes efforts—by force, if necessary—to change the regime. Legitimate authority. We agree with Bishop Gregory on the importance of your decision to seek a congressional resolution for action against the Iraqi regime. We also endorse your efforts to enlist United Nations support, though any failure of the United Nations to live up to its own responsibilities should not deter you from acting with those nations that are prepared to join with the United States to prevent aggression. Prudence plainly suggests that no effort should be spared to build consensus at home and abroad. Complete consensus in the matter of war can hardly be expected, however, and the absence of complete consensus does not render unjust an otherwise just use of military force. Probability of Success and Proportionality. Here again Bishop Gregory raises a set of important questions. And again we hope and trust that you will consider them carefully. None of the points he raises rules out the use of military force as a matter of moral principle. All concern factors that must be taken into account in assessing the prudence of a decision one way or another. For example, Bishop Gregory asks: How would another war in Iraq impact the civilian population, in the short- and long-term? On the one hand, as Bishop Gregory implies, harm to non-combatants (including civilian deaths) is virtually inevitable in war, even where one side is careful, as we are confident the United States would continue to be, to minimize civilian casualties. On the other hand, the people of Iraq have suffered for many years under a brutal and murderous tyranny from which the effective use of military force could liberate them. As Bishop Gregory says in his letter, “[t]here are no easy answers.” But we stress the need to consider the factors on both sides of the equation. The same is true for Bishop Gregory’s other questions, such as: Would the use of military force lead to wider conflict and instability? We agree that you must very carefully consider whether force might lead to wider conflict. Yet you must also consider whether the reverse is more likely true. Indeed, the weight of evidence, in our judgment, tends in that direction. If the Iraqi regime is not deterred from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, it will almost certainly become an even more aggressive and destabilizing factor in the Middle East than it has heretofore been. Wider conflict and instability could result from the failure to use force in a timely manner. One need think only of the tragic consequences of the failure of France and other nations to enforce the terms of the Versailles Treaty against Germany when Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland in 1936. Had the allies exerted themselves to act at this moment of comparative weakness for the Nazi tyranny, much conflict could have been avoided, and many lives spared. Norms governing the conduct of war. Here again the focus of Bishop Gregory’s attention is on the very important question of harm to the civilian population of Iraq. And, again, we urge you to take this consideration very seriously, but also to consider the likely harm to innocent people of failing to deter aggression by the Iraqi regime, as well as the possibility of restoring to the Iraqi people freedom from the merciless tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Catholics and all men and women of goodwill agree that the decision to use military force must never be taken lightly. Indeed, the tradition of just war theory holds that force may be justified only as a last resort. Hence, Bishop Gregory’s admonition to “pursue actively alternatives to war.” But if, in your careful and considered judgment, no alternative can be found capable of removing or disarming a proven aggressor whose willingness to murder his enemies is checked only by his capacity to accomplish the task without unacceptable consequences to himself, then the norms of justice permit—and your obligations of civic leadership require—you to act with the force of arms. Yours sincerely, |
|
|
Dr. Robert George
Princeton, NJ |
|
Interested in adding your name to this list? Sign the Catholic Petition |
|