A friend of mine brought to my attention an Op-Ed piece written by former President Jimmy Carter. My friend remarked on how unusual it is that a former president would publicly oppose the foreign policy of the U.S. government. It seems to me that my friend thought that this, in itself, should lend more credence to what Mr. Carter said. Personally, I found Mr. Carter’s piece to be uninformed and disingenuous to the point of almost being dishonest, especially in his espousal of Christian just war theory.

Here are some very preliminary observations on the mistakes Carter is making as it applies to just war theory. Carter’s remarks are preceded by a ">":

>The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent options
>exhausted.

This is patently incorrect. Just war theory requires all nonviolent options to be considered but not exhausted. It is easy to imagine a scenario where nonviolent options would eventually end a brutal situation but where a violent option will end a brutality in a more timely manner, thus making the violent option more just. Let us imagine a situation where a nation's leader looks to commit genocide on an ethnic minority. Diplomacy might eventually convince the leader to stop the genocide but, perhaps, tens of thousands of people might be saved by using a violent option sooner.

> The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and
> noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise
> accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral damage."

The war's weapons do not have to discriminate, according to just war theory. The leadership of the combatants must discriminate. Just war theory says that combatants must keep collateral damage minimized and must never intentionally cause such damage. The Dresden bombing would fall outside of just war theory. It is quite obvious that the leadership of the coalition forces did everything they possibly could to keep collateral damage to a minimum. This satisfies the requirements of a just war.

> Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered.
> Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie
> Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

In this requirement, Carter is almost correct. However, the complete just war theory requirement would be that the violence must be proportional to the injury we and innocent parties have suffered. No one argues the brutality with which Hussein treats his own people. He has committed atrocities and illegal acts of war against his own people that would have condemned him and his regime at Nuremburg.

As well, although the above as I state it meets just war theory, I personally believe this requirement is one of the things that makes just war theory bogus. More on that later or in a future email.

> The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society
> they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the
> Security Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can
> still be honored, but our announced goals are now to achieve regime
> change and to establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps
> occupying the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For
> these objectives, we do not have international authority.

Close but not correct. Before I quote UN Security Council Resolutions, let’s take note that Saddam Hussein and his regime have consistantly violated said resolutions for over 10 years. Two examples (among many) which many are familiar with is his expulsion of UN Weapons Inspectors and the manufacture of Al Samoud missiles.

Now, to the resolutions.

Resolution 678 is the one where the UN authorizes armed force. It states:
"Demands that Iraq comply fully with resolution 660 (1990) and ALL SUBSEQUENT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS..."

"Authorizes Member States co-operating with the Government of Kuwait, unless Iraq ... fully implements ... the above-mentioned resolutions (Guy's note: demanding withdrawal from Kuwait, amongst other things), to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to uphold and implement resolution 660 (1990) AND ALL SUBSEQUANT RELEVANT RESOLUTIONS and to restore international peace and security in the area."

The ... is to save typing for parts of the resolution which are not germane such as the 1/15/90 deadline.
The CAPS are mine for added emphasis.

Resolution 687 ended the hostilities. It recalled all previous resolutions and affirmed them as well. It, therefore, qualifies as a subsequent resolution as it relates to Res. 678 and Res. 660. It says, in part, that the Security Council:

"Decides that Iraq shall unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision of:

(a) all chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities related thereto;

(b) all ballistic missiles with a range of greater than one hundred and fifity kilometers, and related major parts and repair production facilities."

There is a similar paragraph concerning nuclear weapons and materials.

Iraq has not unconditionally accepted all of these provisions. This much is not even argued by the most liberal portions of American and European society or even by Arab nations sympathetic to Iraq. Since this resolution is a qualified resolution subsequent to 660 and 678, the authority granted all member states to use ALL NECESSARY MEANS to enforce those resolutions and those subsequent, continues to be in force. If a member state decides that 10 years of frustration are enough, and regime change is necessary to force Iraq to comply with the resolutions, the necessary? international authority is already present. It would require an affirmative vote of the Security Council to withdraw that authority.

> The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists.
> Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite
> possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the
> region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at
> home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States
> will undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world
> peace.

This is a legitimate requirement of just war theory but it applies to the combatant nations only. Destabilization of a region is not taken into account in just war theory. That being said, reasonable people may disagree as to whether or not replacing a regime that uses chemical and biological weapons against its own people with one put in place by the United States will result in a better situation than the one that exists now. Or could they? I think people who kid themselves into thinking that an American military occupation of Iraq would be worse than what the Iraqi people now face are being unreasonable.

I also want to briefly touch on the general idea of proportional response. Although this is a part of just war theory, I totally reject it as being part of a just war. In terms of proportion, the only just war is one that is ended as quickly as possible. I argue that an initial disproportionate response almost always has a better result than a series of proportional responses that only extend the length of the conflict and force more people to live under war conditions for longer periods of time.

The link to the Carter Op-Ed piece.