"War and Peace"
by Rev. Kimi Riegel
May 11, 2003

War and Peace, a short title for a sermon that hopes to cover all of what constitutes human history in just a few minutes. An impossible task, in part, because war and peace are what we are about as human creatures. We always find reasons to fight; protect the country, revenge a wrong, protect or free a people, provide free trade or other economic reasons, and, of course, one of the most common reasons we fight is to create peace. We are either fighting, threatening to fight, getting ready to fight, watching someone else fight or just finishing a fight. And still to a large extent, war is beyond our comprehension.

Writers far more eloquent than I have been writing about war since we have had words, and before we had words we were recording war’s victories and defeats on the walls of caves. From Shakespeare’s “Once more into the breach dear friends! Or close the wall up with our English dead” to the writings of one veteran of the first Gulf War, “We walk twenty miles and the only enemy we see are those who surrendered, gathered now in concertina-wire circle and their dead friends in trenches and burnt vehicles. I’ve never seen such destruction. Every fifty to one hundred feet a bombed-out enemy vehicle lies disabled on the unimproved surface road, bodies dead in the troop carriers, or blown from them, Dozens, hundreds of vehicles with bodies inside or out. Perhaps those two burnt men were thinking they might make it back to Baghdad and their families” [1].  

Each writer is more capable of capturing the waste and devastation then I, each more capable of speaking of the glory and heroism than I. I have never experienced war and thus have only the academic and second hand stories with which to begin to understand. And those can only be partial, at best. As over the years many of the people who have returned from wars are unable to speak of what they endured, unable to describe the devastation or the comradeship that develops in moments of complete dependence on one another.  

We are aware of the mixed messages that come from war: the horror and the valor, the fame and the misery, the devastation and the hope. Wars have saved lives and ended lives, created countries and destroyed them. Wars have ended reigns of terror and been a part of creating reigns of terror. And still war, in the long and short of it, even in the best of situations, is a horror that will remain beyond comprehension. Those who plan and order it, can’t comprehend the totality of it. There are always unintended and unforeseen consequences. Those who participate in it can’t comprehend the totality of it, as their immediate experiences are often overwhelming. And certainly those of us who watch from the sidelines cannot begin to comprehend the experience or the totality.

What is left for us, is to determine when a war is justified. When do the ends that will be found, justify the means that must be taken. It is left for us, especially in a democratic nation, to consider when the loss of life will be justified by the outcome. Many have said that the ends never justify the means. No matter how noble our intentions, they never justify ignoble means. And, of course, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King asks us to consider that the ends are inherent in the means. In other words we will reap what we sow. All of these must be considered when we wish to end the peace and begin a war.  

Fighting has had rules from the moment it began, wars have always been governed by some guidelines especially in the case of care for prisoners or woman and children. Certain kinds of behavior have long been considered deplorable and dishonorable in war and although these conventions change with time and cultures, ethical considerations are a part of the very nature of war. In the Bible we see that humans have been struggling with when to wage war for centuries at least. The Hebrew Scriptures read “Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man," as the Lord told Noah in Genesis 9:6. Suggesting that war is a business we would engage in only if we are willing to die in that war. A serious consideration especially for our current leaders who don’t put their own lives on the line.[2] Not uncharacteristically the Bible struggles with the same issues we do and comes to the same inconclusive answers.

Early Christians such as St. Augustine in the fourth century and St Thomas Aquinas in the 13^th century wrote extensively about what makes for a good reason to go to war and about the ethical behavior in such a war. It is their writings that were the seeds for today’s Just War Theory, which outlines the conditions that are necessary for war to be justified. It is Christian struggles with the peaceful message of Jesus and the reality of humanness that created the impetus for Just War Theories.  

Before going into much detail about just war theory, let me state here that it has many opponents based on many complex and ethical grounds. Anyone who looks at these issues, even as far back as the church fathers, admits that war, its declaration and its execution, is a complex set of issues and concerns. There are those who believe that no war can be ethical. For some of these people there is nothing, even defense of the innocent, which justifies killing. There are others who oppose just war theory from what might be considered the other side, offering the notion that such considerations as justice in war limit the means that can be used to achieve the aim of a war which is to have it be over and victorious in as short a time as possible. Still others suggest that if there is justification for the war there is justification for using whatever means necessary to pursue that war.[3] To tackle each of these, or for that matter any of these, would take several books and has. For those who are interested, I have copies of a just war bibliography and for those really interested we can have a discussion/book group about the issues. Just let me know. For the remainder of this morning let me begin to lay out some of the notions of just war.

Susan Thistlethwaite writes in the Chicago Tribune, “ St. Augustine looked at the horrors barbarian invaders were inflicting on the Roman citizens and he asked himself if a Christian could ever justify going to war. He answered a very qualified "yes." A Christian can go to war if it is to "defend the vulnerable other." His version didn't even include self-defense. Another saint, Thomas Aquinas, added self-defense many centuries years later. You have a just cause, said Aquinas, when you are defending yourself.

St. Augustine started with: you have to have right authority (be a government), and you need to have a right intention (not just love of power or violence). Over the centuries other stipulations were added before a war could be called justified: one must see a good outcome (more good should result than the evil of violence), it must be proportional (not use more force than necessary), there must be a reasonable hope for success (peace should result), and the war should be the very last resort (all diplomacy must be exhausted)”[4][5]

Let’s look at each of these as they have come to be defined by today’s Just War Theorists.

The first of these, Just Cause, is classically defined as defense of another or as Aquinas added defense of self. This is the first, most basic and longest standing part of the understanding of a just war.

The second principle, good intention is very tied to this first one of just cause. A good or just intention would be for a resulting peace rather than to increase the size and influence of one’s empire. John Hinman of the Values Institute offers that revenge, political expansion and land acquisition are not considered just causes for their intentions are not good.[6] Obviously the notion of what constitutes aggression and thus what constitutes revenge or self-defense are part of the burden of the defending a choice for war. As you can see, these become very slippery principles and, at least to me, it becomes clear why certain sound bites are so popular in the media.  

Next there is the notion that only those with proper authority, which is generally understood to be governments, can declare wars. A just war is declared publicly by a nation or government. Again John Hinman says this particular requirement brings up some very interesting questions about terrorists and their ability to declare war. Terrorists are not generally considered governments so what should be a nation’s response if it is not really a declaration of war?[7]

So you see a conversation just on these three -- just cause, right intention and proper authority -- becomes quite complicated as they apply to events since and including the attacks of September 2001. And those are just the first three, and most clear cut principals of just war theory.

Next comes the notion of reasonable chance of success. Again Hinman states this is fairly clear: It is wrong to cause such suffering for a futile effort. But what does this say of small nations that are certain to lose when they themselves against large aggressors who are certain to win?[8] And we recall Winston Churchill’s words,”What is our aim? Victory, victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival." (Speeches to Parliament, 1940).[9] Victory was had but at the onset there didn’t seem to be a reasonable chance.

Proportionality is the fifth and sixth part of the puzzle. This refers to how we fight as well as when we fight. We must be certain that the benefits of the war will be proportional to the suffering it will cause as well as being certain we don’t use excessive force to obtain our goals. A just war is proportional.

And finally, the last principle is that of war being the very last resort. All avenues of diplomacy and non-violent persuasions have to have been tried in order for the war to be just. All other means of achieving the same end should be exhausted first.  

As I think of each of these I can hear people on all sides (for there are more than pro and con) of the Iraqi war offering their slices of the truth about these principles. Even knowing the principles, even if we had a common understanding of such terms as aggression, self-defense, success, peace, and last resort, it is not easy, to get a clear picture of the justness of our current world wars.

In addition, most just war theorists believe that these principles should apply universally. Obviously this is a problem when we are talking about combatants from widely varying levels of power and economic status and cultural understanding. One of the reasons for a nation to want to comply with these “rules” is in the case of future interaction between the countries after the war. When the two warring factions either wipe one or the other out or there will be no need to associate, there is much more motivation to have limitless and what might be called unjust engagement.  

But that is not the case; our world is utterly interconnected. There is no way to escape the consequences of our nation’s actions in war, be those intended consequences or unintended. It is essential for the health of the world that justice in war and justification for war be continually debated and reached for. We must strive to understand and define the principles of a just war for we will always be called to answer for our actions. I believe, like Martin Luther King, that the ends are inherent in the means. There may always be war, perhaps because there will always be innocent people in harm’s way, but we must seek to live by the principles of justice, so as to create more justice. May we continue to work for justice as we strive for peace. Namaste