SBC ethicists: Criteria for 'just war' not met

[Revmitchell]

NASHVILLE (BP) -- The use of chemical weapons against civilians is a human tragedy with moral urgency, but the United States should not intervene in Syria because the conditions for a "just war" have not been met, according to two Southern Baptist ethicists.

Russell D. Moore, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said in an article on Religion News Service Sept. 3 that the regime of Syrian President Bashar al Assad is "lawless and tyrannical," and the first principle of just war -- a just cause -- has been met.

"That said, there are other principles missing here, both to justify action morally and to justify it prudentially," Moore stated.

Daniel Heimbach, senior professor of Christian ethics at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, offered a slightly different take on Syria, stating that the United States lacks a basis for intervening "in the internal affairs of a distinctly sovereign and separate state."

"I see here no legitimately interpreted just cause sufficient to justify the United States going to war with Syria merely because parties in a civil war are doing bad things to each other," Heimbach said in comments provided to Baptist Press.

"No one is attacking or threatening to attack the United States or any ally of the United States. In fact, should the U.S. go to war with Syria it will vastly increase the risk of Syrian attack on U.S. allies in the region," said Heimbach, who was instrumental in developing President George H.W. Bush's just war ethic for the 1991 Gulf War when he served as deputy executive secretary of the Domestic Policy Council.

Heimbach noted, "The meaning and interpretation of a just cause for war (in a just war ethic) requires the nation being attacked (Syria) to have done, or to be doing, or to be moving toward doing some terrible wrong toward the attacking nation (United States) -- not merely doing something bad within their own borders against their own people."

http://www.bpnews.net/BPnews.asp?ID=41038

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

With due respect, Moore and Heimbach are wrong. There are the principles of a "just war" ...

• 
  A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

There is no negotiating with terrorists, or with terroristic regimes. Assad won't even entertain delegations from Saudi Arabia or Lebanon. He certainly won't admit the UN or any western delegation who might attempt to redress the chemical attack on his own civilians.

• 
  A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

Any action sanctioned by the US Congress -- and they will eventually provide such sanction -- meets this criteria. The rest of the western world wants to do something, but is hampered by the illegitimate apologists for the terrorist regime.

• 
  A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

The civilians of Syria are unable to defend themselves against the attack on them by their own government. Therefore it is necessary for some outside power to defend them. We cannot stand idly by while innocents die, and there are far more innocents that were killed rather than the al-Qaeda specter so many seem anxious to raise in the arguments against action.

• 
  A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

An attack by the U.S. will be completely successful, and it will not last long. It won't have to last long.

• 
  The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

No one can argue -- one might try, but would fail in disproving -- that this criterion would be met in the execution of a U.S. response.

• 
  The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The violence of a U.S. response would be far less than the use of chemical weapons against defenseless civilians.

• 
  The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

This would be the trickiest of all the criteria to meet, given the attack will most assuredly involve action against urban areas. In the end, the qualifier at the end of this requirement will have to suffice as the means by which it is justified.

I can't see how anyone can advocate or justify doing nothing when innocents are being made fatal victims of their own corrupt terrorist government. It is unthinkable.

 

[Revmitchell]

• 
  The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

No one can argue -- one might try, but would fail in disproving -- that this criterion would be met in the execution of a U.S. response.

So you believe that if Obama unilaterally does this, and it will be all obama, then the war in Syria will be over?

I don't think so.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

So you believe that if Obama unilaterally does this, and it will be all obama, then the war in Syria will be over?

I don't think so.

I don't believe the Great Pretender will have the guts to do what has to be done, and I seriously doubt anything will be done. I'm defending the concept, not the idiot in charge of it. There is plenty of precedent for taking action. I just don't believe he has the character to live up to his own "line in the sand" or "red line" or whatever colorful metaphor he has come up with. He's a milquetoast coward, a socialist if not a communist in "liberal" clothing, who hasn't the ability to lead nor the slightest conception of justice. He overspoke himself in drawing the "line" and is not desperately looking for a way out the dilemma he has created for himself, and is, beneath it all, loathe of taking action. Sen. McCain is absolutely right about how we should address Syria, and while I admire him trying to force the G/P to do something, I believe he knows, as do I, that in the end, nothing is going to happen. That doesn't mean it is the right decision.

When we fail to act, we will have sealed our descent from superpower to second-class nation. No one will ever take the U.S. seriously again, and I think it possible that is the G/P's real agenda. By refusing to get behind McCain, many of us are helping this empty suit achieve that goal.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't believe the Great Pretender will have the guts to do what has to be done, and I seriously doubt anything will be done. I'm defending the concept, not the idiot in charge of it. There is plenty of precedent for taking action. I just don't believe he has the character to live up to his own "line in the sand" or "red line" or whatever colorful metaphor he has come up with. He's a milquetoast coward, a socialist if not a communist in "liberal" clothing, who hasn't the ability to lead nor the slightest conception of justice. He overspoke himself in drawing the "line" and is not desperately looking for a way out the dilemma he has created for himself, and is, beneath it all, loathe of taking action. Sen. McCain is absolutely right about how we should address Syria, and while I admire him trying to force the G/P to do something, I believe he knows, as do I, that in the end, nothing is going to happen. That doesn't mean it is the right decision.

When we fail to act, we will have sealed our decent from superpower to second-class nation. No one will ever take the U.S. seriously again, and I think it possible that is the G/P's real agenda. By refusing to get behind McCain, many of us are helping this empty suit achieve that goal.

I agree......BUT, the UN was created to address these "Small War" issues, not rely on the USA for implementation. The Marines are specifically trained to address this. Will that happen with this administration, appears unlikely.

 

[poncho]

With due respect, Moore and Heimbach are wrong. There are the principles of a "just war" ...

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

There is no negotiating with terrorists, or with terroristic regimes. Assad won't even entertain delegations from Saudi Arabia or Lebanon. He certainly won't admit the UN or any western delegation who might attempt to redress the chemical attack on his own civilians.

• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

Any action sanctioned by the US Congress -- and they will eventually provide such sanction -- meets this criteria. The rest of the western world wants to do something, but is hampered by the illegitimate apologists for the terrorist regime.

• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

The civilians of Syria are unable to defend themselves against the attack on them by their own government. Therefore it is necessary for some outside power to defend them. We cannot stand idly by while innocents die, and there are far more innocents that were killed rather than the al-Qaeda specter so many seem anxious to raise in the arguments against action.

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

An attack by the U.S. will be completely successful, and it will not last long. It won't have to last long.

• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

No one can argue -- one might try, but would fail in disproving -- that this criterion would be met in the execution of a U.S. response.

• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The violence of a U.S. response would be far less than the use of chemical weapons against defenseless civilians.

• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

This would be the trickiest of all the criteria to meet, given the attack will most assuredly involve action against urban areas. In the end, the qualifier at the end of this requirement will have to suffice as the means by which it is justified.

I can't see how anyone can advocate or justify doing nothing when innocents are being made fatal victims of their own corrupt terrorist government. It is unthinkable.

You have an uncanny ability to leave out important facts that don't fit neatly fit into your preconceived conclusions. Is this something you do on purpose?

Maybe you just suffer from memory lapses at the most opportune times? Here's a little refreshment for your memory then.

2005: US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy organizes and implements the "Cedar Revolution" in Lebanon directly aimed at undermining Syrian-Iranian influence in Lebanon in favor of Western-backed proxies, most notably Saad Hariri's political faction. Counterpunch: "Faking the Case Against Syria," by Trish Schuh November 19-20, 2005.

2007: Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker reveals that US, Israel, Saudi Arabia and Hariri in Lebanon as well as the Syrian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood were assembling, arming, training, and heavily funding a sectarian extremists front, many of whom had direct ties to Al Qaeda, to unleash in both Lebanon and Syria. The goal was to create and exploit a sectarian divide between Sunni and Shi'ia Muslims. Hersh interviewed intelligence officers who expressed concerns over the "cataclysmic conflict" that would result, and the need to protect ethnic minorities from sectarian atrocities. The report indicated that extremists would be logistically staged in northern Lebanon where they would be able to cross back and forth into Syria. New Yorker: "The Redirection," by Seymour Hersh, March 5, 2007.

2008: The US State Department begins training, funding, networking, and equipping "activists" through its "Alliance for Youth Movements" where the future protest leaders of the "Arab Spring," including Egypt's "April 6 Movement" were brought to New York, London, and Mexico, before being trained by US-funded CANVAS in Serbia, and then returning home to begin preparations for 2011. Land Destroyer: "2011 - Year of the Dupe," December 24, 2011.

2009-2010: In an April 2011 AFP report, Michael Posner, the assistant US Secretary of State for Human Rights and Labor, admitted that the "US government has budgeted $50 million in the last two years to develop new technologies to help activists protect themselves from arrest and prosecution by authoritarian governments." The report went on to admit that the US (emphasis added) "organized training sessions for 5,000 activists in different parts of the world. A session held in the Middle East about six weeks ago gathered activists from Tunisia, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon who returned to their countries with the aim of training their colleagues there." Posner would add, "They went back and there's a ripple effect." AFP: "US Trains Activists to Evade Security Forces," April 8, 2011.

2011: Posner's US trained, funded, and equipped activists return to their respective countries across the Arab World to begin their "ripple effect." Protests, vandalism , and arson sweep across Syria and "rooftop snipers" begin attacking both protesters and Syrian security forces, just as Western-backed movements were documented doing in Bangkok, Thailand one year earlier. With a similar gambit already unfolding in Libya, US senators begin threatening Syria with long planned and sought after military intervention. Land Destroyer: "Syria: Intervention Inevitable," April 29, 2011.

US Created and is Now Using Syrian Catastrophe to Justify Intervention

The non-debate taking place now to justify US military intervention in a conflict they themselves started and have intentionally perpetuated, is whether chemical weapons were used in Damascus on August 21, 2013 - not even "who" deployed them. The weakness of the US' argument has seen an unprecedented backlash across both the world's populations and the global diplomatic community. And despite only 9% of the American public supporting a military intervention in Syria, Congress appears poised to not only green-light "limited strikes," but may approve of a wider military escalation.

In case you missed it . . .

US Created and is Now Using Syrian Catastrophe to Justify Intervention

How is it in any way "just" to create the very crisis that is being used to "justify" a military attack ?

Problem-Reaction-Solution Explained

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPZYd5a6W8U

You can deny all this and call me names or try to demonize me and I suspect you will as it's the only defense you have against hard facts and the truth. It's quite evident the neocon indoctrination has taken a firm hold in your mind but, you cannot deny that there is a mass awakening going on and you and all the neocons in government and media have no hope of stopping it by editing out important facts and history and repeating the same tired old lies over and over and over again. Face it man it ain't working for you neocons anymore. No one is buying it. We all know about problem reaction solution and false flags now. The truth genie is out of the bottle.

Liberty and truth is going viral all over the world and you can't stop it.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I agree......BUT, the UN was created to address these "Small War" issues, not rely on the USA for implementation.

True. But, if possible, the UN is more gutless than the G/P.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

True. But, if possible, the UN is more gutless than the G/P.

Then kick them out of Manhattan & outa the country. Let them set up shop in Chad or Egypt or Pakistan.

 

[poncho]

Refusing to follow a wacked out war mongering representitive of the military industrial complex shows common sense.

Go ahead follow John McCain and see how fast China and Russia can throw our economy in a tailspin by dumping dollars and all that debt of ours they are holding. John McCain is no friend of America. He's asking us to stick our head in bear trap. For his Al Nusra pals.

Man, I wish you neocons would think of ways to help America get out the trouble we're already in instead ways to get us involved with everyone else's problems and more wars.