'Just War' and the Moral Response to Terrorism

By Linda Busetti
HERALD Staff Writer
(From the issue of 1/31/02)

"We must not become what we hate," warned Dr. Paul Churchill, philosophy department chairman at George Washington University, in his lecture "Just War Theory and the Morality of Our Response to Terrorism" at Marymount University last Friday.

Marymount President Dr. James Bundschuh welcomed Churchill and noted Marymount’s Center for Ethical Concerns sponsored the presentation.

"The Just War Theory provides the most appropriate moral framework with which to begin ethical reflection about responses to terrorism," Churchill said. "As most of you know, because this is a Catholic institution, the Just War Theory really began as part of the tradition of ethical reflection within the Roman Catholic Church and is fairly well developed within that religious tradition. …Interestingly enough, in fact, there are traditions of just war reflection, which are fairly independent of the Western orientation. One very interesting one developed within Islam itself."

Churchill explained that Just War Theory is divided into Jus ad Bellum —the justice of waging war — and Jus in Bello — moral guidelines for the conduct of war. The objectives are to limit the occasions on which war is waged and to limit the way wars are waged to "morally legitimate means," Churchill said. The criteria for Jus ad Bellum, according to Churchill, are a just cause, proportionality, competent authority to declare war, right intention and war as a last resort. Moral guidelines for the conduct of war, Jus in Bello, require that noncombatants be immune from attack and that proportionality — least force — be a standard for waging war.

Churchill said Just War Theory in the Islamic tradition goes back to the 14th century. He pointed out parallels between Islamic thinking and Catholic teaching. In Islamic tradition, only the caliph, in consultation with a religious council, can declare a "jihad," "war must be waged with good intentions, there should always be an invitation to accede to Islam before attack and noncombatants should be spared unless they were directly helping the enemy cause," Churchill said.

"It should be clear that there is absolutely no question that the evil of terrorism can never, ever meet any of the just war criteria," Churchill said. "Moreover, its intention is to violate these principles."

As for the "global war on terrorism," following the initial war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, Churchill said, "The term ‘war on terrorism’ is rhetorically satisfying as it makes clear that this is a very serious endeavor … but calling our response ‘war’ gives the terrorists a stature they do not deserve. It treats them like a government when they are more like organized criminals."

Churchill warned of "long-term consequences" of our response. "We must weigh the good of averting present and grave danger against the prospect of provoking greater danger in the future. A victory in Afghanistan could lead to future acts of terrorism, even deadlier than Sept. 11, Churchill said.

"Congress really seems to have abdicated its responsibility by authorizing President Bush to use ‘all necessary and appropriate force’" with no time limit or nation named," Churchill said.

"It would be both ironic and very tragic if our response to terrorism proved to be a greater threat to our civil and political liberties in the long run than did terrorism itself," Churchill said about the Antiterrorism Act.

Churchill ended his presentation by saying that the United States is at a crossroads in how it views and responds to the world. He quoted Henry David Thoreau, "What I have to do is see that I do not lend myself to the wrong that I condemn." He added, "We must provide an alternative source of hope for those who are not terrorists but see, tragically see, hope only in terrorism … We must prove that we are not their enemies, but the enemies of their enemies."

Copyright ©2002 Arlington Catholic Herald.  All rights reserved.