The whole question of military action in Syria is a troubling one for anyone, especially for Christ-followers. I think there are definitely times that military action is called for, but is this one? A recent Breakpoint broadcast addressed this issue with relation to the "Just War" doctrine. It's the most balanced discussion I've come across. Here is an excerpt:
In response to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, would a
U.S. strike against Syria be justified in light of the principles of
Just War theory?
Just War theory helps Christians think about war within a Christian
framework. From Augustine to Aquinas to the Reformers, Christian
thinkers have generally agreed that for a war to be just, it must meet
the following conditions:
The cause itself must be just — as well as the intention behind going to war. War must be waged by a legitimate authority. Force used in war must be proportionate to the threat and must not target
non-combatants. War must be a last resort, and there must be a
reasonable chance of success.
Let’s look at each of these in regards to Syria. And folks, I think you’ll see with me that there are no easy answers here.
First, is the cause just? The Obama administration is making the case
that it must act to stop the Assad regime from using chemical weapons.
That certainly does seem like a just cause.
However, as Gerard Powers at the Institute for Peace Studies at Notre
Dame writes, just cause is “generally limited to defense against
aggression.” In Syria, as in most civil wars, both sides are aggressors.
In Syria, we would be taking sides, not acting against aggression.
That brings us to the question of intention. Sen. John McCain added
language to a Senate resolution that would commit the U.S. to changing
the momentum on the battlefield in favor of the rebels, which is highly
problematic from a just war perspective.
Legitimate authority poses another tricky question. The administration
points to the 1925 Geneva Protocol against chemical weapons and the 1993
Chemical Weapons Convention signed by 189 countries. However, as the
Washington Post points out, there is no enforcement mechanism in these
documents. And many countries, friend and foe alike, are questioning the
legality of a U.S. attack without U.N. approval. (Of course, if the
U.S. were acting in self-defense — which we aren’t — the U.N. wouldn’t
be an issue.)
Now proportionality: According to Gerard Powers, “the overall
destruction expected from war must be proportionate to the good to be
achieved.” In that sense, launching missiles to destroy the Syrian
military’s ability to launch chemical attacks seems reasonable. However,
it also appears that the Syrians have begun hiding military assets in
the midst of civilian populations. Aiming for those assets would put
many civilian lives at risk.
And it’s possible that a U.S. “intervention” could lead to more chemical attacks, a regional war, or a jihadist takeover of Syria. As Rabbi Michael Broyde wrote in the Huffington Post,
“In the real world, just war theory has to actually work, and not just
theoretically work. Doing nothing is a moral option when doing anything
makes a bad situation worse.”
Another question: Are we at the “last resort” stage? Have we exhausted all diplomatic and economic options? I don’t know that we have.
And finally, do we have a reasonable chance of success? Answering this
one requires that the administration and Congress define what success is
before we go to war.
Hard questions; no easy answers. That’s where we are. On the whole, my
sense is that an American attack on Syria probably would not meet the
standards of just war.
To read the whole thing, go
here. Some pretty compelling but very balanced arguments. What do you think?
