Beginning
with Augustine of Hippo and later with Thomas Aquinas, Just War Tradition (JWT)
was developed as a model for Christian ethics regarding war; it was a
structured, enumerated system that allowed for Christians to serve in the
military if only certain criteria were met. JWT has endured throughout
centuries and has remained an often-used and sourced doctrine by various faiths
and nations, especially the Roman Catholic Church. However, as Yoder says, “The
just war tradition was not originally intended to be used in democracies. It
was originally assumed that decisions about war belonged to sovereigns” (Yoder,
“Just War Tradition: Is It Credible?” 296). In its current form in the modern world,
Just War Theory is not credible based on its subjective properties,
rules-enforcing nature, and utter lack of effectiveness. I will explicate each
of these faulted properties, citing Yoder’s extensive writings on just war and
pacifism.
John
H. Yoder did substantial writing on the subjectivity of JWT and the
implications of that subjectivity in modern warfare. In “Just War Tradition: Is
It Credible?” Yoder says, “The control of information is a science and an art”
(296). In the age of information and communication, facts have become extremely
malleable and relative. Information can be controlled from all sides; the
governing authorities have the ability to decide what the media hears, and the
media has the ability to decide what the public hears. When Yoder gives
examples such as “Has there been naked aggression? Is the belligerent
government legitimate? Has everything else been tried?” (“Just War Tradition,”
296), there is no way to know whether the final answers are accurate, whether
the information was purposely manipulated, or who manipulated the information
in question.
Even in the
hypothetical case that a leader may have attempted full-disclosure and
accountability, the question of subjectivity remains. “It is clear that without
reliable sources of information, there is no basis for evaluating most of the
claims on which a just war decision is based. When the head of the Joint Chiefs
parries a factual question with “trust me,” I don’t” (“Just War Tradition,”
296). In the age of drone warfare, we are asked to trust the president (and his
current opposing candidate) with his judgment in their use. When innocent
people are killed, blame is shifted, even though the weapons are becoming
“smarter” (which seeks to fulfill the JWT criterion of sparing innocent life). Yoder
uses an example from the Gulf War: “When General H. Norman Schwartzkopf said…
“all Saddam Hussein needs to do to stop our killing civilians is to surrender,”
he replaced a restraint in bello with
an accusation ad bellum” (“Just War
Tradition,” 297). With this mindset, the government officials can call their
war “just,” citing the enemy as the one who is acting unjustly. This pattern
renders the criteria essentially useless and null.
There are inherent
issues in a theory based on abiding by a set of rules with no positive
affirmations or guidelines. Yoder says, “I question the doctrine’s legitimacy
by showing that people who say they hold to it do not, in fact honor its
restraints” (The War of the Lamb, 110). JWT has been manipulated and shaped so
gradually yet consistently that we are at a point in which, comparing the
current results with the original intention, there has been a clear breach of
the restraints. Blinders have been pulled over the eyes of the Christian
community so that they believe that they are actually serving the Lord through just war. Yoder makes a conclusive
statement, “I don’t dialogue with the just war tradition because I think it is
credible, but because it is the language that people, who I believe bear the
image of God, abuse to authorize themselves to destroy other bearers of that
image” (The War of the Lamb, 116). I see it as analogous to smoking cigarettes
(or using any addictive substance). I can say that I would like to start
smoking, but with strict guidelines: only four times per day, only filtered
cigarettes, only outside, and so on. But there will likely come a day when I
(maybe justifiably) want a fifth cigarette, and that becomes the norm.
Eventually, I may be smoking a pack per day. Though it is having horrible
long-term consequences for my body, on a short-term basis I can empirically
prove its necessity. Though I never acted in an unjust way, I still ended up in
a place that is very different and clearly outside of the bounds originally set
in place. When violence is an option, it really is not an option but a
guarantee as has been proven in the historical use of the last resort mindset
in JWT.
The alternative to rule-based
policy is positive nonviolent strategy. Yoder quotes
Lisa Cahill, saying,
genuine biblical pacifism does not
revolve around the absolutization of any human values or rules, but around a converted life in Christ that subsumes
and often changes every ‘natural’ pattern of behavior. The incoherence of
pacifism and just war thinking lies,… most characteristically, in their
disagreement about how present and accessible in human life the kingdom, by the
grace of Christ, really is (The War of the Lamb, 117).
Christians
are called to an active embodiment of the kingdom of God on earth – the law has
been fulfilled.
The question put to us as we follow
Jesus is not whether we have successfully refrained from breaking any rules.
Instead, we are asked whether we have been participants in that human
experience, that peculiar way of living for God in the world and being used as
instruments of the living God in the world… (Yoder, “The Pacifism of the
Messianic Community,” 135).
This
way of living and acting in a practical sense was embodied by Gandhi (with
overlap from the Muslim world). Nonviolent action can replace military power.
“The advocate of war cannot say there is no other recourse before weighing
nonviolent alternatives” (The War of the Lamb, 103). The paradigm of nonviolent
positive (rather than restrictive) action undermines the basis and structure of
JWT, rendering it ineffective and misleading.
Lastly,
the tradition of just war has practically failed to yield any results. War has
characterized the history of humanity.
Sometimes what broke through all
restraints was simple national selfishness, which some call realism. Sometimes what led to total war
has been a transcendent religious or ideological claim, which some call holy. Sometimes the cause for which
blood has been shed is morally even less worthy than that… In each of these
ways war was totalized, so that there was no effective restraint… Just war
theory has not been operational in any significant way in the military reality
of the last centuries (The War of the Lamb, 87-88).
JWT
has never been seriously respected, especially in times that national interest
would be compromised in any significant way. It has been used as a crutch to
gain the trust of the general public. There is capability within the theory,
but little to no practicality. This reality undermines the functionality of the
JWT system, rendering it less than viably optimal for any nation’s continued
use.
Just
War Tradition has little standing for continued reference and reliability. The
subjectivity in the thinking of our modern leaders and the agendas they
continuously seek to promote cripple the objectivity of JWT. The specific
criteria present and required in JWT have been consistently broken throughout
history. There is no evidence that JWT has ever prevented or slowed the onset
of warfare. Just War Tradition, as it stands today, has no credibility or
usability.
