Every week or so, one of my conservative friends, with the best of intentions, sent me an article or something off the web to "help" me with the research for this book.  One such missive was an essay titled "Is War With Iraq Justified?” and was written by Dr. Woodrow Kroll, of Back To The Bible fame. This piece was written just before we started in with "Shock and Awe."  In it, he framed his discussion around the Just War Principles, which were mainly attributed in his article to St. Thomas Aquinas:

* A just war can only be waged as last resort, after reasonable attempts to bring justice have been exhausted.

A last resort or what? Saddam was going to invade us? He was going to invade whom? With what? Israel alone could have rolled his army up in about three days.  They also possess enough WMDs to turn Iraq into a parking lot.  While it is true that Saddam defied many UN resolutions, the Israelis have defied their fair share as well.  The vast majority of nations around the world did not see the situation in its "last resort."  The UN inspectors were begging for more time.

* A just war can only be waged by a legitimate authority. People, vigilantes, terrorists do not wage just wars; only a legitimate government is permitted to wage a war that can be considered justified.

The United States is a legitimate government.  But preemptive war violates all known international law on the subject.  When the U.S. unilaterally decided to go to war in Iraq, they proceeded to throw away almost 60 years of international law.  It has been argued by some that international law is outdated and doesn't have enough teeth to deal with tyrants like Saddam Hussein.  This is a slippery slope; now that this law has been breached, it opens the door to abuse by nations copying the United States' precedent.

* A just war can only be fought to address wrongs that have been committed.

A first strike attack on a nation that has committed no atrocities cannot be considered justice; that's aggression.  This is where you can make any argument you want.  If this is the case, then almost any nation on earth is fair game, including us.  Atrocities are in the eye of the beholder–would it have been justified for the Chinese or the Russians to bomb us for the My Lai atrocity in Vietnam? There are so many examples of atrocities.  I guess it needs to be pointed out that Saddam Hussein committed the worst atrocities of his heinous regime when he was our buddy fighting the Iranians.  Every atrocity is horrible–ask the Tutsis in Rwanda or the Muslims in Darfur.  Our government took this and twisted it around to justify an attack on a nation that, as bad as their leader was, wasn't anywhere near to committing an atrocity against us. It was aggression.

* A just war can only be fought with "right" intentions.  War is not justified to gain control of another nation, its assets, or its people.  If the right intention for going to war is not present, justice is not present.

First of all, how could our intentions be "right" when we kept changing what it was we were attacking Iraq for? First it was for WMDs, then it was the link to 9/11, then it was to remove the evil dictator and spread democracy to the Middle East at the point of a gun (and isn't the world a better place without Saddam?).  Secondly, if the hawks in our government have their way, we're going to be in Iraq for the next fifty years to make sure that no one else gets their paws on Iraqi oil.  Call it what you like, but we're taking control of their greatest asset.  Oh, nominally it will be under their control, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

* A just war can only be fought if there is a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

No one doubted that we would easily prevail over the Iraqi army.  That comes part and parcel with the fact that Saddam was not much of a threat to his neighbors anymore.  Then again, no one doubted that the Germans would roll over the Poles, either.  That doesn't make this a just war.  Success is a slippery word.  As of this writing, in spite of the Surge, the success of the overall mission is still very much in question.  We are now four-plus years from Dubya’s famous Top Gun moment on the USS Lincoln where he declared "mission accomplished."  I'd hate to have to define this war as a success in a court of law.

* A just war can only be fought if the ultimate goal is to re-establish peace.  More specifically, war is not justified if the situation in a country cannot reasonably be expected to be better after the war than before.

I think any reasonable person would agree that the ultimate goal of this war was to re-establish peace, although Iraq was not at war with any other nation before we got there.  I can't think of any war where the ultimate goal was to keep fighting.  On the other hand, the Bush administration has prepped the American people for perpetual war.  They even had a name for it for a while: The Long War.  As to the second part, I think this is a point where reasonable people could disagree.  I don't think that there's any question that the Iraqi people and the rest of the world are better off without Saddam Hussein in power, but I think it is debatable whether Iraq and the Middle East is better off because of our preemptive invasion.  There certainly has been more overt violence going on in Iraq in the last five years than before the invasion.

* A just war must never allow the force used to be disproportional to the need. Nations must be prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the wrongs that have been committed.

From 40,000 feet, it doesn't feel disproportional.  "Shock and Awe?" No, that wasn't disproportional.  Again, our government kept changing the "limited" objective.  First, it was to eliminate the spread of WMDs, and then it was to remove Saddam Hussein, now it is to allow time for the Iraqi military to defend itself.  (How can we miss you if you never go away?)  I’m also wondering what the fourteen permanent bases that we are building in Iraq have to do with the "limited objectives of addressing the wrongs that have been committed?"

* A just war must employ weapons and tactics that discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Innocent civilians are never permissible targets of war, and war can only be just if every effort is made to avoid civilian casualties.

This comes down to the crux of the issue; I'm sure that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et al, didn't want to intentionally kill civilians.  I'm pretty sure it still bothers them deeply.  But the only way to avoid civilian casualties is to avoid war.  I don't care how "smart" the bombs are, some of them are going to veer off course or malfunction, and inevitably, civilians are going to be killed.  Mothers.  Babies.  Children.  Old people.  People in hospitals.  Wedding parties.  The reason that war should be a last resort is because innocent people are always going to get killed.  When George W. Bush decided to attack Iraq, he consciously decided to kill innocent people as well.  He didn't have to attack Iraq.  He better have his answers straight on Judgment Day.

          Dr. Kroll comes to the conclusion that, based on these principles, the United States "has a pretty strong case." I would argue that, by the very principles that he has set out on these pages, the opposite is true.  But that's not the real problem here.  Dr. Kroll is a very influential man, and when he trots out the Principals of Just War and then gives his "thumbs up" to the US government, this has immense repercussions on his large audience, many who are confused about how or what to think.  He also skews his audience's opinion with this: "If you feel that war as the last resort may be justified in certain cases, and you believe the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein is one of those cases, be supportive of your President.  Write your Senator or Congressman. Express your beliefs, whatever they may be.  That's a privilege of a democratic society, but rarely are unpopular decisions like this one supported by letters or e-mails."  He's basically telling his faithful, "If you support the war, tell your politicians. If you don't, don't bother."
          I don't know Dr. Kroll, and he's probably a nice and godly man, but this is not good theology.  This is about as far away from the Jesus that I know as it gets.  And the really sad thing is, this type of coercion is played out from pulpits all across America week after week, month after month, year after year.  This "I'm not gonna tell you how to vote, but...” or "I'm not gonna tell you how to think or feel, but...” or "I'm not trying to justify the war, but..." is turning Christians all over the country into apologists of aggression.  We're supposed to be against all war, except in the most drastic or dire cases.  This war, in no way, could ever be justified as a drastic or dire case.