This is coolbert: This Catholic priest is being interviewed on TV. He is the man that lectures senior U.S. military officers on the concept of "just war". Tells them what is the criteria for a just war and how to fight it according to the traditions and teachings of the religions of our culture and how we perceive ourselves in the world. And the priest says that the lecturing does seem to have had an effect that is positive. American military officers do want to see themselves as being part of a higher order of civilization. Not as wanton killers just doing their job. And some very destructive methods that used to be part of military protocol say during World War Two are no longer employed by the U.S. military. Saturation bombing of the enemy cities for one. Now, one could argue that the absence of saturation bombing is due to the advent of precision guided weaponry that makes saturation bombing ineffective and unnecessary. I think not. American senior military officers do want to be the good guys. If at all possible, they do not want to resort to tactics that while destroying the enemy, may cause great resentment and backlash in the long run. They do believe they are representatives of a higher order of morality, and for the most part do want to conduct themselves in a humane manner.

Now, a comment about the apparent contradiction between Christian teachings as understood by some and the fact that western, Christian societies do engage in brutal warfare. The argument is made that according to the teaching of Jesus, Christians should be pacifistic and not engage at war. And the scripture quoted to justify this argument is that Jesus said, "do not resist him that is wicked, but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other also to him". Well, it has only recently become known what this meant at the time [the time Jesus was alive]. Turning the other cheek to whosoever struck you would be considered to be a sign of your contempt for that person. Does not mean pacifism. These things about the Bible, and the context of the time are constantly being understood, whereas they were before misunderstood. So we see that this passage does not exactly call for pacifism at all. Just try arguing this with some persons. But, nonetheless, the argument of just war has been around even since it seems Christianity has been around.

And what are the criteria for just war? It seems the criteria have been pretty well established by such Christian thinkers as Augustine and Aquinas. These criteria are:

Jus ad bellum
· Legitimate authority. Private individuals and groups are not permitted to take up arms against others, however justified their cause may appear. Only governments those who have been entrusted with the public good may wage war, and they must do it openly and legally.
· Just cause. A government may wage war in self-defense, in defense of another nation, to protect innocents or to regain something wrongfully taken. The desire for personal glory or revenge, or to impose tyrannical rule, is never an acceptable cause for waging war.
· Right intention. The ultimate end of a government in waging war must be to establish peace, rather than to use a "just war" as a pretext for its own gain.
· Last resort. A governing authority must reasonably exhaust all other diplomatic and non-military options for securing peace before resorting to force.
· Reasonable chance of success. A government may not resort to war unless its prospects for success are good. In this way, lives will not be needlessly wasted in the pursuit of a hopeless cause.
· Proportionality. A government must respond to aggression with force only when the effects of its defensive actions do not exceed the damage done by the aggression itself.


Jus in bello
· Noncombatant immunity. An authority waging war is morally obligated to seek to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants. While civilians unfortunately may sometimes come in harm's way, a government may never deliberately target them.
· Proportionate means. This criterion pertains to specific tactics of warfare and seeks to restrict unnecessary use of force. It is intended to ensure that the military means used to achieve certain goals and goods are commensurate with their value, particularly when compared to the loss of life and destruction that could also occur.

I think that with regard to the Catholic priest's lectures to the senior U.S. military officers, the "Jus in bello" part would be most applicable. Unfortunately in the Vietnam War, this rule of jus in bello was not always followed, even though the Laws of Land Warfare as existed at the time were not broken either. What I specifically have in mind is this type of incident that occured probably with all too often frequency. An American infantry patrol approaches a Vietnamese village. All is calm. Suddenly, from the village, machine guns open up on the American soldiers, who suffer casualties. The junior American officer in charge makes an estimate of his situation and arrives at the solution. Call in artillery fire on the village. This is done. With devestating effect. The machine gun fire ceases and the Americans move on the village and capture what is left. Examination finds two VC with machine guns, both dead, a totally destroyed and leveled village, and fifty Vietnamese civilians, all dead too. This would be where proportionate means would come into play. You cannot crack the egg with a sledgehammer to make an omelet! Just one example.

coolbert.