“War, what is it good for?” This was the question asked by the blatant anti-Vietnam War protest song produced by Motown in 1969. It seemed appropriate for what I want to explore here. (Remember the Seinfeld episode where Elaine claims this was Tolstoy’s original title for War and Peace? But I digress). Is war ever good for anything? According to the song the answer to the question is “absolutely nothing.” This was certainly the sentiment held by many, myself included, during those turbulent times with regard to this particular war. But is there such a thing as a just war? Was Vietnam wrong, but WWII wasn’t? And if so, what constitutes a good war?
Many times we hear that war is wrong from a "Christian" perspective, because it breaks the commandment that says "Thou shalt not murder." Such an absolute statement creates obvious problems. For example, what does a Christian do in the case of being attacked by another nation or, as is currently the case, by a group of people bent on destroying our country?
It was the great church father Augustine of Hippo who first sought to give some specificity to a definition of a just war. In fact, his position, which he articulated in the early Fifth Century, has long been the Church’s traditional definition of a just war. Augustine held that a just war must have five components. A just war:
(1) Must be waged for self-defense, rather than conquest, plunder, or political oppression;
(2) Must be initiated by the proper authority, i.e., lawful government, rather than an angry mob, etc.
(3) Must be fought with the right intention: peace. It should not be fought to gain land, power, wealth, etc.
(4) Must have a reasonable chance for success.
(5) Must use means proportionate to the goal. If the goal of a war is to liberate an oppressed people, for example, it makes no sense to destroy all their cities in the process, or to bring them under further subjection.
Unfortunately, throughout the Middle Ages, as demonstrated especially by the Crusades, Augustine’s definition was usually not followed. European governments, all of which considered themselves Christian realms, routinely waged war against one another, and rarely for the purposes of self-defense. Even the Pope had a standing army, and he, too, invaded other nations.
Because of the endless European warring, and even more because of the teaching of Scripture, Martin Luther saw few valid reasons to go to war. For him self-defense and the restoration of peace were the only valid reasons to go to war, and even then war had to be begun with great deliberation.
If we look at the various wars America has been in how would they stack up with Augustine’s criteria? Let’s start with the American Revolution. It certainly was not waged for self-defense (no one was attacking us). After years of boycotts and protests in the colonies in response to British taxes and regulations, angry mobs stirred up by the inflamed rhetoric of the Sons of Liberty, took matters into their own hands in bloody skirmishes with the British. Wasn’t this against Augustine’s #2 criteria? (Reading about this time in our history I am struck by how familiar the themes are to our bipartisan bickering today and the American people’s complaints about taxes and government regulations!) Eventually, in the spring of 1775 British troop’s encountered colonial militia in the village of Lexington and that famous shot rang out. Though the source of the shot is unknown, it touched off eight years of war. The question is, were war, revolution, hatred and bloodshed the best way to achieve our independence? How would Gandhi have suggested we go about rectifying taxation without representation?
What about the Civil War? Some people think that the main agenda of this war was to free the slaves. But in reality this was a secondary consideration. The main reason was the preservation of the union. This seems to me to be in opposition to criteria #3- “Must be fought with the right intention: peace.” It should not be fought to gain land, power, wealth, etc. Who knows if it would have been so bad to have had a divided country? Europe does it with the European commonwealth. We know the approach Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. would have advocated we take- he modeled it throughout the civil rights movement of the 60’s. Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael of course represent the militant approach to righting injustice. Who is right?
What about WWII, considered by most to be the epitome of the “just war?” The Second World War was a global military conflict lasting from 1939 to 1945. It involved most of the world's nations, including all of the great powers. It was the most widespread war in history, marked by the mass death of civilians, including the Holocaust and the only use of nuclear weapons in warfare. It was the deadliest conflict in human history, resulting in 50 million to over 70 million fatalities.
It is a popular misconception among Americans that the US voluntarily entered WW2, at least against the Germans. In fact, the US didn't. Although the US was leaning towards involvement in WWII, many people still saw it as a "European" conflict. That changed on Sunday, Dec. 7 1941 when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. A good portion of the US Navy was destroyed. The sunken ship Arizona still remains there today. The emotional reaction to Pearl Harbor was very similar to the feelings most Americans had after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center: Shock and disbelief followed by anger. The US entered the general war as a result of the attack on Pearl Harbor. But the US entered against Japan and did not, repeat not, declare war on Germany. However, a few days after Pearl Harbor, Hitler declared war on the US, thereby putting an end to the US dilemma. Whether the Americans would have declared war on Germany had not Hitler made the decision for them is one of the great unanswered questions of history. Probably the US would have entered the war against Germany, but possibly not on the scale that it did, and almost certainly not with Germany being given priority over Japan. But nobody will ever know for sure. So it would seem that WWII was justified under the criteria of self-defense.
Other wars in America’s history clearly fail to meet Augustine’s criteria. We undertook the war in Vietnam to support the South Vietnamese in their fight against the North. We ended up with the longest war in American history and the devastation of the Vietnamese homeland. If the reasons for going to war are things like keeping the world safe for democracy by stopping the spread of communism and protecting the American way of life (Korean War) or toppling “evil” dictatorships who also supposedly had weapons of mass destruction (Iraq), are these legitimate motives?
But what about moral causes like freeing the slaves, defeating Hitler, getting rid of Saddam Husain, coming to the aid of Rwanda (I know we didn’t- but shouldn’t we have?) and Bosnia? In other words, isn’t it a noble and just cause to come to the aid of the oppressed? To free the captives and end tyranny?
One of my favorite Christian authors is Catherine Marshall, late wife of Peter Marshall, the famous Scottish-American preacher and Chaplain of the United States Senate. She had something to say about this: “Jesus chose God’s way to deal with the iniquity He loathed. Judas Iscariot wanted his Master to use the world’s technique by rebelling against Rome. Judas, the classic revolutionary, wanted armed political rebellion against the godless forces of Rome. Jesus deliberately refused, thereby telling us for all time, “No, the end does not justify the means.” He chose instead God’s way of changing men’s hearts, minds and lives via the cross. Certainly we cannot ‘love righteousness’ and ‘hate iniquity’ and then use any of iniquities techniques. Those who recognize in Jesus of Nazareth the First Rebel, see equally that his weapons were never those of unrighteousness. He will never allow us to do evil with the claim that it’s to achieve justice or right.”
This would seem to speak to America’s use of torture and other strategies of war which are so controversial. For example, the German’s introduced poison gas in WWI. It soon became used by both sides, though it never proved decisive in winning a battle. Its effects were brutal, causing slow and painful death, and poison gas became one of the most-feared and best-remembered horrors of that war.
No easy answers, but a topic worth thinking about since world peace doesn’t seem to be on the horizon any time soon.
