Home Page  Faithful to the Magisterium  Ubi Petrus, Ibi Ecclesia  Write to Marty     Why Catholic? Because True.

Pro Life  Abortion  Capital Punishment  Contraception  Euthanasia  Suicide  Voter Guide 

America at War

by Marty Barrack

Pope John Paul II opened his great encyclical letter, Fides et Ratio, “Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth.”

The decision to go to war in a particular situation is a prudential judgment and depends on a rightly formed conscience. We apply Catholic teaching on war to the particular circumstances and assess whether these particular circumstances are consistent with the just war criteria.

A New Kind of War

Since the fifth century, when St. Augustine proposed the Church’s doctrine on just war, when one nation attacked another it did so openly. Soldiers wearing their nation’s uniform would forcibly enter into the territory of another nation. Catholic teaching on war during these past sixteen centuries has been based on that premise.

In 1968 that changed. With state support, Islamist terrorists transformed the art of war by attacking another nation without identifying their national origins. The element of state support made these attacks acts of war, rather than merely criminal acts. Several Islamic nations provided training camps, financial assistance, and other forms of protection for the terrorists.

The Attacks Against the United States

The number and ferocity of attacks worldwide, particularly against Israel itself, have been beyond counting. The major attacks against the United States alone have been these:

• June 5, 1968: Jordanian terrorist Sirhan Bishara Sirhan assassinated American presidential candidate Robert Kennedy in Los Angeles.

• July 22, 1968: The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) carried out the first aircraft hijacking, seizing a Boeing 707 in Rome, diverting it to Algeria, and holding thirty-two Jewish passengers hostage for five weeks, forcing the United States to set up the first security checkpoints at its passenger airports.

• March 9, 1977: Hanafi Muslims in Washington, DC, seized the District Building, the B’nai B’rith building, and the Islamic Center, in the process shooting Washington DC city councilman Marion Barry in the chest. The bullet barely missed Barry’s heart, and gunfire delayed his transportation to a nearby hospital.

• November 4, 1979: Islamic students stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran, holding 52 Americans hostage for 444 days.

• April 18, 1983: A suicide car-bomber blew up the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, killing 17 Americans.

• October 23, 1983: Shiite suicide bombers blew up the French military headquarters and a U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and 58 French paratroopers.

• December 12, 1983: Shiite extremists set off car bombs in front of the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait City, killing five people and wounding 86.

• September 20, 1984: A car bomb at U.S. Embassy annex in East Beirut killed 16 people and injured the ambassador.

• June 14, 1985: Shiite Muslim gunmen seized a TWA Boeing 727, forcing it to Beirut, Lebanon. They demand the release of 700 Arabs held by Israel. A U.S. Navy diver was killed and 39 Americans were held until July 1.

• October 8, 1985: A disabled American Jew, Leon Klinghoffer, was killed and thrown overboard by Palestinian militants who had seized the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro.

• September 5, 1986: Hijackers seized a Pan Am jumbo jet carrying 358 people at Karachi airport. Twenty people were killed.

• December 21, 1988: Pan Am flight 103, a Boeing 747, exploded over Lockerbie, Scotland, on a flight from London to New York, killing 270 people, including 189 Americans and 11 residents of the town.

• February 26, 1993: A huge bomb exploded in a parking garage below the World Trade Center in New York, making a crater six stories deep under the basement, killing six people and wounding more than 1,000 in an attempt to topple one of the towers onto the other. It would have done so had the bomb been placed in a slightly different location. Six Islamic militants were convicted in the bombing and sentenced to life in prison.

• April 14-16, 1993: Saddam Hussein’s Iraqi forces tried to car-bomb former President George H. W. Bush during his visit to Kuwait. Kuwaiti intelligence became aware of the plan in time to prevent it.

• November 13, 1995: A car bomb detonated at a U.S. military headquarters in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing five U.S. service personnel.

• June 25, 1996: A truck bomb exploded outside the Khobar Towers in Dharan, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and wounding hundreds of other people. Members of a little-known Saudi militant group, Hezbollah, were indicted for the attack.

• August 7, 1998: Car bombs exploded outside U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, within minutes of each other, killing 224 people and wounding thousands. Evidence pointed to bin Laden.

• October 12, 2000: Terrorist bombing killed 17 U.S. sailors aboard the USS Cole as it refueled in Yemen’s port of Aden. Evidence again pointed to bin Laden.

• September 11, 2001. Terrorists hijacked four United States airliners. At 8:46 am American Airlines flight # 11 from Boston crashed into the North Tower at the World Trade Center. At 9:03 am United Airlines flight #175 from Boston crashed into the South Tower. At 9:45 am American Airlines flight # 77 crashed into the Pentagon. At 10:10 am United Flight 93 crashed in a wooded area in Pennsylvania after passengers confronted the hijackers. Until the last moment, the plane that hit the Pentagon had been vectored straight for the White House. The evident intention of the terrorists had been to destroy the White House, the Capitol, and the World Trade Center. In these attacks more than three thousand American lives were lost, and the emphasis properly remains there. But the loss of the buildings has to be counted as well, because they were symbols of the United States of America. And we have to measure the gravity of the event by what the terrorists intended, not by what they were able to accomplish. This distinction is reflected in United States law, which provides penalties for such crimes as “attempted murder” equal or nearly so to the completed crime.

Because of the state support, most of these eighteen events that preceded September 11, 2001, have been a casus belli, a cause of war. In nearly all cases, the United States responded peacefully. The result became visible to the world on September 11, 2001.

.

The United Nations Security Council on Iraq

United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 - November 29, 1990

• Iraq must comply fully with United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 (regarding Iraq’s illegal invasion of Kuwait) “and all subsequent relevant resolutions.”

• Authorizes UN Member States “to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area.”

United Nations Security Council Resolution 686 - March 2, 1991

• Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.

• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

• Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 - April 3, 1991

• Iraq must “unconditionally accept“ the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision“ of all “chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities.”

• Iraq must “unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material“ or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.

• Iraq must “unconditionally accept“ the destruction, removal or rendering harmless “under international supervision“ of all “ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities.”

• Iraq must not “use, develop, construct or acquire“ any weapons of mass destruction.

• Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

• Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq’s nuclear weapons program.

• Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.

• Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.

• Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.

• Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 - April 5, 1991

• “Condemns“ repression of Iraqi civilian population, “the consequences of which threaten international peace and security.”

• Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.

• Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 707 - August 15, 1991

• “Condemns“ Iraq’s “serious violation“ of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687.

• “Further condemns“ Iraq’s noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

• Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.

• Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.

• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

• Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.

• Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.

• Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 715 - October 11, 1991

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 949 - October 15, 1994

• “Condemns“ Iraq’s recent military deployments toward Kuwait.

• Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.

• Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1051 - March 27, 1996

• Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1060 - June 12, 1996

• “Deplores“ Iraq’s refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq’s “clear violations“ of previous UN resolutions.

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1115 - June 21, 1997

• “Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access“ to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “clear and flagrant violation“ of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1134 - October 23, 1997

• “Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access“ to UN inspectors, which constitutes a “flagrant violation“ of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, 707, 715, and 1060.

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

• Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1137 - November 12, 1997

• “Condemns the continued violations by Iraq“ of previous UN resolutions, including its “implicit threat to the safety of“ aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.

• Reaffirms Iraq’s responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1154 - March 2, 1998

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the “severest consequences for Iraq.”

• United Nations Security Council Resolution 1194 - September 9, 1998

• “Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with“ UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes “a totally unacceptable contravention“ of its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.

• Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1205 - November 5, 1998

• “Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation“ with UN inspectors as “a flagrant violation“ of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 and other resolutions.

• Iraq must provide “immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation“ with UN and IAEA inspectors.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1284 - December 17, 1999

• Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).

• Iraq must allow UNMOVIC “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access“ to Iraqi officials and facilities.

• Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.

• Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - November 8, 2002

• Iraq is already in material breach of past U.N. demands.

• Iraq has aggressively pursued weapons of mass destruction, even while inspectors were inside the country. Iraq has undermined the effectiveness of weapons inspectors with ploys, delays, and threats -- making their work impossible and leading to four years of no inspections at all.

• The resolution approved today presents the Iraqi regime with a test -- a final test. Iraq must now, without delay or negotiations, fully disarm; welcome full inspections, welcome full inspections, and fundamentally change the approach it has taken for more than a decade.

• The regime must allow immediate and unrestricted access to every site, every document, and every person identified by inspectors. Iraq can be certain that the old game of cheat-and-retreat tolerated at other times will no longer be tolerated.

• Any act of delay or defiance will be an additional breach of Iraq’s international obligations, and a clear signal that the Iraqi regime has once again abandoned the path of voluntary compliance.

In addition to the legally binding United Nations Security Council Resolutions, the UN Security Council had issued at least 29 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein’s continued violations of United Nations Security Council Resolutions as of 1998 including these:

The Present Situation

• The United States has been under attack for more than thirty years by state-sponsored terrorists. Iraq has been among the sponsors and has tried to build nuclear reactors capable of enriching uranium for the production of nuclear weapons. Iraq has, therefore, been in a de facto state of war with the United States these past thirty years.

• The United Nations has recognized Iraq as a dangerous nation since 1991. It has passed seventeen resolutions, but has done nothing to actually enforce them. When Iraq kicked out the United Nations inspectors in 1998, the United Nations took no concrete action but instead simply passed another Security Council resolution, # 1205. It is significant that the United Nations Security Council has made no effort to withdraw Resolution 1441. Rather, its current stance is: “We are not serious now about what we said then.” The same statement applies to every one of the sixteen preceding resolutions.

The United States, convinced that the United Nations Security Council will do nothing to enforce its resolutions against an aggressor nation, and that multilateral diplomacy has been ineffective, has decided to defend itself.

The Holy Father has urged that the United States defend itself by not by military force but rather through diplomacy. In the case of Iraq, the time for decision has passed. But the war of Islamist terrorism, underway these past three decades and particularly since September 11, 2002, is likely to continue for a very long time. With the greatest respect for the Holy Father’s prudential judgment, and the prudential judgment of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, on this particular prudent judgment, it is necessary to review Catholic teaching on war.

Catholic Teaching on War

Catholic teaching on war is rooted in the doctrine of self defense.

Following St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: CCC 2263 “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of ones own life; and the killing of an aggressor … The one is intended, the other is not.” It continues, CCC 2264 “Someone who defends his own life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.”

The principle of double effect says that it is morally allowable to perform an act that has at least two effects, one good and one bad, if four conditions are met. First, the act must be morally good, or at least morally neutral, in itself, independent of its consequences. Second, the good effect must not be obtained by means of the evil effect; the evil must be only an incidental by-product. Third, the evil must not be intended, only permitted. Fourth, there must be proportionally grave reason for permitting the evil effect.

The Catechism continues: CCC 2265 “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”

The classic just war doctrine states:

CCC 2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

• All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

• There must be serious prospects of success;

• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

When we measure the present situation by these criteria the evidence supporting war includes:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor was indeed lasting, grave and certain. On September 11, 2001 more than three thousand persons were killed, the World Trade Center towers were destroyed, the Pentagon was severely damaged, and four jet aircraft were destroyed.

• All other means of putting an end to it have not worked. After each of these attacks, the United States and other countries tried measures short of war to prevent recurrence.

• The breakdown in Afghanistan of the al-Qaeda network, and the Taliban government that sponsored it, are evidence that a combined military, diplomatic and financial initiative has a serious prospect of eventually eliminating large-scale state-sponsored terrorism.

• The United States has set forth as a military principle that only the terrorist organizations and the government infrastructures that enable them are to be destroyed. Innocent civilians are to be protected from attack. There may be times when the terrorists and their enablers, hiding amid civilian populations, may bring military fire on those civilian populations, but morally that is covered by the principle of double effect: the intention is never to kill the civilians but only to render harmless the infrastructure being used to attack other innocent civilians.

The Responsibility of Catholic Citizens

Each Catholic is responsible to apply Church teaching on war to these particular circumstances and decide whether a war to defend the nation against states that sponsor terrorism, and against the state sponsored terrorists themselves, is consistent with the just war criteria.

Catholics who conclude from the record that peaceful negotiation could stop Al Qaeda terrorism should oppose the use of military force in stopping them, while those who conclude from the record that only military force will stop them should support it. Similarly, Catholics who conclude from the record of the United Nations that it is effective at preventing or ending wars should oppose military force, while those who conclude from the record that the United Nations is not effective should support military force.

Catholics in the Military

Copyright © 1999-2008 Martin K Barrack. All rights reserved.