 obert
P. George is the McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton
University and author of In
Defense of Natural Law.
Kathryn
Jean Lopez:
Is what we have begun to do in Afghanistan "just"?
Robert P.
George:
The use of military force against terrorist networks and regimes
abetting their crimes is certainly justifiable. These networks and
regimes have, by their repeated attacks, made it abundantly clear
that they will not be deterred from committing additional atrocities
by anything short of force. Our leaders are, in my judgment, morally
obligated to use as much force as necessary, subject to the principles
of just warfare, to protect innocent Americans and other potential
victims of terrorism. It would be an injustice for them to fail
to employ the necessary force.
Lopez: What
makes a just war? Is there a checklist?
George:
There
is a set of principles establishing criteria for moral evaluation
of the use, or possible use, of military force. First, war can be
justified only in self-defense or defense of others. Wars may not
legitimately be fought for national glory, to avenge past wrongs,
for territorial gain, or for any other non-defensive purpose. Of
course, force may rightly be used, as in the Persian Gulf War, to
evict an invading and occupying power. This is an essentially defensive
purpose. A second principle of just war requires that the use of
force have a reasonable likelihood of success. Lives may not be
sacrificed and taken in futile causes. A third principle demands
that force be used only when non-violent means will not suffice.
A fourth recognizes the immunity of non-combatants from deliberate
attack. Although it can be permissible to perform military actions
that foreseeable result in the death or injury of noncombatants
(so-called "collateral damage"), it is never permissible
to make the harming of noncombatants the object of the actions.
Thus, killing civilians for revenge, or even as a means of deterring
aggression by people who sympathize with them, is forbidden. A fifth
principle requires that the use of force, especially where harm
to noncombatants is likely, be "proportionate" to the
evil being opposed.
Relatedly,
norms of fairness must be observed in electing to perform acts one
knows will likely cause such harm. The just-war tradition affirms
the sanctity of life and the principle of equal human dignity. The
Golden Rule forbids treating people we don't know or who have no
connection with us or who differ from us in ways that are irrelevant
to their status as noncombatants as having less of a right to life
than people who happen to be our fellow citizens.
Lopez:
What does the Pope think of the war on terrorism?
George: The Pope has placed a great deal of emphasis on the third
principle I mentioned. His constant plea is for nations to go the
extra mile in seeking nonviolent means of resolving disputes. Still,
he is careful not to rule out the use of force. Nothing he has said
contradicts the traditional understanding that the use of force
can be not only permissible but morally required. Indeed, the papal
spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls, recently stated that the use of
force against terrorists by the United States and our allies can
be "an action of active prevention against a threat that has
already occurred in the horror of a few weeks ago and can happen
again."
Lopez:
There has been some press coverage of a debate between Vatican hawks
and doves. What is that about? And how close is it to debates we
are having here?
George:
There are, I believe, no significant differences on moral principles.
There are, however, differences of prudential judgment that bear
on the application of principles to the concrete case at hand. Some
people apparently believe that military force should be delayed
until further diplomatic possibilities are exhausted. Other people
fear that a war against terrorism will be futile, or that it can
succeed only if the degree of force used is disproportionate in
terms of harm to no-combatants. Everyone in the Vatican knows, however,
that President Bush must act in good faith on his own prudential
judgments.
Lopez:
How does the response of the bishops in the United States differ
from the papal response?
George:
Bishop Joseph Fiorenza, in his capacity as President of the United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, has written to President
Bush to affirm America's " moral right" and "grave
obligation to defend the common good" in the face of terrorism.
In the same letter, Bishop Fiorenza emphasizes the moral duty to
respect just-war principles in fulfilling this obligation. He called
particular attention to the requirements of "probability of
success," "civilian immunity," and "proportionality."
Lopez: Are
the tenets of a just war shared by denominations?
George: The just-war theory is a common patrimony of Catholic, Protestant,
and Orthodox Christians. (There are, of course, small Christian
pacifist denominations.) Moreover, the teachings of Jewish tradition
on war and peace are closely in line with it. Just-war theory is
sometimes identified as "Catholic," and it is true that
modern popes have explicitly invoked it and made important contributions
to its development. It is, however, by no means uniquely Catholic.
Lopez: Is
the idea of a jihad ever just?
George: I think it best to speak in terms of "just" rather
than "holy" wars. The key thing is to comprehend and comply
with the principles of justice in deciding whether and how to use
force. The God worshiped by Christians and Jews is a God of (among
other things) justice. Justice is (among other things) what He demands
of us. And He demands it of nations and kings and presidents as
well as of subjects and citizens.
Lopez:
One of our goals, as stated by the president, is to rid the world
of evil? Is that reasonable?
George:
No president, no military force can do that. But actions can be
taken to eliminate, or at least blunt the force of, particular evils,
whether they are natural evils like landslides or polio or moral
evils such as Nazism, communism, and terrorism. In attempting to
express the depth of his commitment to fight the evil of terrorism,
the president overstated the breadth of what can be accomplished.
Still, one cannot fail to be impressed by the depth of George W.
Bush's commitment. And I thank heaven that we have a leader who
is willing to call evil by its proper name.
|
