Just war and just peace: trying to be just

Page 5 of 5

vi. Proportional to the offence

This is perhaps an Old Testament idea, which has not been sufficiently read through a gospel lens. It seems to be the notion of ‘an eye for an eye’, rather than a leg for an eye, or a head for an eye. It is also undermined by pre-emptive strikes, unless the history of the suspect group is taken into account. For instance, if Saddam Hussein's history of violence against the West was taken into account, and if he had been linked to the 9-11 terrorism, and if it had been proven he was planning to destroy cities with Weapons of Mass Destruction, then a wholesale war against his nation could perhaps have been justified.

If, if, if.

And some of these ‘ifs’ have shown themselves not to be the case.

vii. Non-combatant immunity.

One of the hopeful developments of military research is the accuracy of missile deployment. The so-called 'smart bombs' have made collateral damage even less excusable. And yet, General Tommy Franks expressed concern prior to the war that many military targets were close to homes, schools and hospitals. These targets were bombed anyway. It is hard to know from the reporting just how accurate the bombing was, but of course many civilians were killed and injured.

Economic globalisation and modernity itself further complicate this issue. For example, are those who launder money, those who build weapons, those who willingly sell weapons to antagonistic countries, those who knowingly provide intelligence equipment to enemies ... are they not combatants of sorts? Who is in fact innocent in these situations? But I'm probably stretching this question too far.

Early in the war I was encouraged to see Iraqi troops surrendering, and not being gunned down or tortured. I had hopes of a graciousness and kindness even midst the violence – perhaps we would see a war less hateful and more tempered than the Vietnam conflict. Then the Abu Ghraib story hit the headlines, and subsequent events have left me feeling more cynical about early claims of restrained and civilised fighting. War tends to make casualties of all involved – even the victorious.  

So where does this leave us with regards to the idea of Just War? I have tried to argue that the principles of Just War have sprung out of strong biblical concepts without being themselves a thorough exposition of what the Bible has to say about war.

I've also tried to show that these principles have throughout history, acted roughly to restrain violence and to support the notion of defence rather than attack. I've suggested a whole battery of problems with the theory, with its rubbery interpretation and application. It is a manikin that needs to be redressed so as to remain presentable amidst the realities of the 21st century and the global era.

Dr Greg Clarke
Director of the Centre for Public Christianity and Macquarie Christian Studies Institute

P 1| 2| 3| 4| 5

09-Jan-2009 11:23 PM Allie

It is very good to hear this discussed from this perspective. I agree with a lot of these thought, and take away food for thought from this article lots to think about and mull over, might even read it again. As Christians I think we should be very careful about not swallowing wholesale what we are fed from political campaigns. This Iraq war has made me believe that seperation of Church and state is crucial to avoid a sort of mob mentality where political powers use religion to do whatever they want. I think it is tragic for different cultures and creeds to think that God is on their side, as they blow each other up. Surely God can't be pleased with such violence and such greed for resources and power. Anyway thats just my 2 cents.

Copyright © 2008 Centre for Public Christianity | Privacy Policy | 19-Dec-2008 05:24 PM | Powered by Business Catalyst