Pre-Emptive War and the Struggle for Peace
Beverly Mitchell
Conference on Ethical Issues Raised by Pre-Emptive War
The Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy, Wesley Theological
Seminary, Washington, D.C., May 1, 2003
Introduction
The recent statement of the Churches' Center for Theology and Public
Policy, titled Christians and War in the 21st Century, A Theological
Analysis, offers a helpful framework for thinking anew about the challenges
of securing peace and avoiding war in our time. The terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001 have served as the catalyst for a new era of United
States foreign policy, partly as a result of the heightened sense of
vulnerability that Americans now experience in the aftermath of those
attacks. The threat of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons of
mass destruction, coupled with the inhumanities of tyrannical regimes,
genocide, and 'ethnic cleansing' in various parts of the world, lend
a sense of urgency to the need to find more effective ways of resolving
international conflicts for the well-being and stability of the global
community. The Center's statement identifies key issues which thoughtful
Christians must now address as they reexamine their attitudes regarding
peace and war in light of this heightened sense of vulnerability.
The 'Just War' Tradition
The Center's statement notes three positions which Christians have held
historically with respect to war. Rightly eliminating crusades as an
appropriate position, the Center's discussion focuses on pacifism and
just war as the two remaining options which have received support from
the Christian community. The Center favors pacifism as the option most
consistent with the teachings of Jesus, and the most supportable theologically.
The theological premises which undergird the Center's position vis-à-vis
war is as follows. The first premise rests with the basic biblical conception
that God freely initiates a covenant relationship with humanity that
reflects the steadfast love of God for human beings. On the basis of
the love God has for us, we are fundamentally in kinship with each other.
As such, we recognize the irrevocable interconnectedness that binds
us to one another. The second premise lies in the doctrine of creation,
whereby, the whole world is God's creation, and the world is our home.
We are commanded to be good stewards of that creation. These two theological
entry points do stand in judgment against the harsh realities of war.
However, the Center has recognized that, given the sinfulness of the
world, there are times when war might be appropriate to restrain evil
or to protect others from harm.
The reality of human sin and the stubborn persistence of evil and injustice,
may lead to the need to engage in war in order to preserve some aspect
of God's intended human good that might otherwise be lost. Even in its
determination that war might be a necessary act on limited occasions,
the Center is very clear in articulating that war is always a tragedy,
and that the Christian tradition's preference is for nations to exhaust
all other options before they resort to war.
Historically, the 'just war' tradition has set forth conditions that
should be met before Christians could, in good faith, approve of or
participate in war. Seven criteria are identified which must be met
in order to justify war: 1) the cause must be just; 2) the war must
be undertaken by a legitimate authority; 3) war must be a last resort,
undertaken only after all other reasonable measures short of war are
inadequate; 4) the expectation that the predictable consequences of
war must be better than the consequences of not going to war; 5) there
must be a reasonable expectation of victory; 6) the actual conduct of
war must be maintained in 'right intention;' and 7) there can be no
directly intended injury to non-combatants. The Center notes that conventional
war has occurred in situations where the standards posed by just war
doctrine have not been met. But, a larger problem presented in the 20th
century by the Cold War was whether thermonuclear war -- and preparations
for such war -- could ever meet the exacting test of just war doctrine.
A policy of mutual deterrence helped to diffuse some of the tension
surrounding the possibility of nuclear war.
With the demise of the former Soviet Union, the United States has been
left the sole remaining superpower. With the end of the Cold War, new
challenges threaten global peace and stability. The pall of fear cast
over the global community for nearly 60 years, because of the threat
that nuclear war poses, persists today. In addition, the threat of biological
and chemical weapons increases our level of anxiety even more. The new
issues which we now face, such as terrorism, pre-emptive war, international
interventions in oppressive nations, and war initiated unilaterally,
make decisions regarding war even more complicated.
Our focus for this colloquium is on the ethical dimensions of pre-emptive
war. I maintain though that we cannot examine this issue in isolation
from the current national security strategy of the United States. We
must look at the question of pre-emptive war in the larger context of
President George W. Bush's foreign policy.
The Historical Role of the United States of America
The Center's statement notes that the United States, with its military
and economic dominance in the world, has the opportunity to be a 'great
positive force for good for the whole global community or it [could]
make things more difficult … It is not clear which way America
will go.' I concur that the United States stands at an important juncture
in which it must decide the kind of leadership it intends to exercise
globally in the years to come. However, I would suggest that there should
be ample concern about the direction the United States seems to be taking.
One has only to read carefully The National Security Strategy of the
United States of America of 2002 to feel that such concern is warranted.
The Security Strategy policy asserts that everyone wants to enjoy the
advantages of freedom and that the United States is seeking to 'create
a balance of power that favors freedom.'1 Because the defense of our
nation against its enemies is 'the first and fundamental commitment
of the Federal Government,' the task of defense has changed 'dramatically.'
Terrorists are organized now to penetrate open societies and can use
the power of modern technology against us.2 Accordingly, the policy
maintains that the United States must defeat this threat by making use
of every tool in its arsenal: military power, better homeland defenses,
law enforcement, intelligence, and vigorous efforts to cut off terrorist
financing. A look at this list of tools in the arsenal reveals the absence
of any diplomatic measures, international cooperation or coalition-building
to confront the new threats to our national security.
Because this nation's enemies have declared intention to seek weapons
of mass destruction, the National Security policy states that the United
States is determined not to allow these efforts to succeed. Further,
America will hold accountable other nations compromised by terror, including
those who harbor them. The only path to peace and security, we are told,
'is the path of action.'3 This path of action to defeat the enemies'
plans involves 'using the best intelligence and proceeding with deliberation.'4
With almost a missionary zeal, the policy asserts that the United States
intends to use this moment to extend the benefits of freedom across
the globe, because it has determined that the advancement of democracy
and economic openness are the best foundations for domestic stability
and international order. Freedom is the non-negotiable demand of human
dignity, and is the birthright of every person in every civilization.5
Accordingly, America will work actively to bring democracy, development,
free markets and free trade 'to every corner of the world.6 The stated
aim of this 'distinctly American internationalism' is to help make the
world not just safer but better.7 Its goals are political and economic
freedom, peaceful relations with other states, and respect for human
dignity.
On the other hand, the campaign against terror means that the United
States will defend the nation and its people, its interests at home
and abroad, by identifying and destroying the threat of terrorism before
it reaches American borders. The United States will exercise its right
of self-defense by acting 'preemptively' against terrorists to prevent
them from doing harm.8 This is defended on the basis that the greater
the threat, the greater the risk of inaction. The new world of terror
demonstrates that there is a more compelling case for the United States
to take 'anticipatory action' to defend itself, even when there is uncertainty
as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. Thus, 'to forestall
or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will,
if necessary, act preemptively.'9 The policy does state that the United
States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats,
nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. However,
in the age in which we live, where the 'enemies of civilization' openly
and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, America
cannot 'remain idle while dangers gather.'10 Because the events of September
11, 2001 have 'fundamentally changed' the context for relations between
the United States and other main centers of global power,11 the unparalleled
strength of the United States armed forces must now be transformed to
focus more on how an adversary might fight rather than where and when
a war might take place.12
The Problem With This 'Pre-emptive' War
The Bush Administration has maintained that there has been precedence
for pre-emptive war. It is true, historically, that preemption has been
considered a particular kind of self-defense against immediate threats,
although it is not mentioned in the United Nations Charter, which only
allows self-defense in the case of attack under Article 51.13 In the
19th century, Daniel Webster argued that in order to justify a claim
for pre-emptive war, a nation must demonstrate a 'necessity of self-defense,
instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment for
deliberation.' The action taken because of the necessity of self-defense,
must be limited by that necessity, and kept clearly within it.14 The
United States' recent military action in Iraq fails to meet this definition
of pre-emption. The new Bush doctrine is not designed to deter threats,
but to preempt them before they are fully formed;'15 asserting that
'the best defense is a good offense.' But clearly the Administration
is failing to make a distinction between immediate threats (preemption)
and long-term potential threats (preventive). The Bush Administration
contends that there is a need to adapt the concept of imminent threat
to include consideration of the capabilities and objectives of today's
adversaries.16 Greater reliance on preemption in a wider range of circumstances
is said to be warranted because the nature of war has changed.17
How are we to evaluate the Administration's position on pre-emptive
war in light of just war doctrine? We can do so if criteria are established
for pre-emptive war and then compared with those criteria of the just
war tradition. Neta C. Crawford has identified four conditions which
must be met to support legitimate preemptive use of force. First, the
'self' to be defended must be narrowly defined. A broad conception of
self makes too many interests 'vital.' Just war or preemption is not
justified to protect imperial interests or assets taken in a war of
aggression. The United States, she maintains, has increasingly defined
its 'self' in broad terms, such as 'enduring national interests,' 'the
vitality and productivity of the global economy,' 'access to key markets
and strategic resources.'18 Second, there must be a justified fear of
imminent attack. In other words, there has to be strong evidence that
war is inevitable and likely in the immediate future. Here, 'immediate'
threats are understood in terms of within hours or weeks unless action
is taken to thwart the attack. Crawford notes that this requires 'clear
intelligence' showing that a potential aggressor has both the capability
and intention to do harm in the near future. Capability alone is not
sufficient justification for war.19 One may rightly concede that in
terrorism, where the terrorists have the advantage of surprise, the
threshold for credible fear of attack is necessarily lower. However,
the danger is that if simple fear of a possible attack justifies preemption,
then preemption will have no limits because we cannot know with certainty
what the other side has, where it might be located, or when it might
be used.20 Crawford offers an appropriate threshold for legitimate preemption.
Aggressive intent coupled with capacity to do immediate harm may constitute
such a threshold.21 In this case, we would need to consider whether
the aggressor has harmed us in the recent past or said they want to
harm us in the near future. Secondly, we would need to determine whether
our potential adversaries are moving their forces into position to do
significant harm.22 The third criterion for legitimate preemption is
that the preemption must be likely to succeed in terms of reducing or
eliminating the threat. There should be a high likelihood that the source
of the military threat can be found and that the damage it was about
to do could be greatly reduced or eliminated by a preemptive attack.23
Finally, military force must be necessary for military preemption. There
must be no time for other measures to work or those other measures must
be unlikely to avert a devastating attack, and the preparations for
which are already underway.24 Crawford also notes important, additional
considerations for preemption: avoidance of the killing of innocents
and the use of measures that harm the prospects of future peace.25
Some of the criteria for just war doctrine correspond nicely with these
four conditions. But what about the war in Iraq, which has been characterized
as 'pre-emptive,'? Our defense planners have shifted the basis of military
force from intentions and likely threats to a 'capabilities-based approach.'26
In reality, the current security policy, which undergirds the action
taken in Iraq, should be described as one of waging preventive war.
War is being executed now in order to preempt the possibility that one
day the enemy might attack.27 Preventive war is not justified under
just war theory; nor is it likely to be judged legal under international
law.'28 A preventive war doctrine undermines international law and diplomacy,
and it short-circuits nonmilitary means of resolving conflicts.29 If
this assessment is accurate, and I believe that it is, can the global
community afford such a policy?
To complicate matters, a number of public justifications were given
for the recent war in Iraq. They included: the need for regime change,
elimination of weapons of mass destruction, the liberation of the Iraqi
people, possible links to al Qaeda, the need to bring democracy to the
Iraqi people. The multiple justifications, given at various times, leave
one with the feeling that perhaps a hidden agenda has been operating
in terms of the preparation and execution of the war. If it is true,
as a number of people have said, that the first casualty of war is truth;
and, if Dale White is correct when he argues that, 'truth is in jeopardy
in any society that is engulfed in preparation for war,'30 then as Christians
called to 'live as though the truth were true,'31 we need to begin to
'study war' less, and focus more on the things that make for true peace
in the global community.
The Larger Problem with American Foreign Policy
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States has been left
in a position of 'global privilege, prestige and power that has [had]
no parallel in history.'32 We have an unchallengeable American military
machine. Although this fact is often expressed with great pride, and
although America tends to see itself as a force for good, those concerned
with the moral health of this nation should have some concerns about
how this nation exercises the privilege and power it currently enjoys.
If this privilege, prestige, and power go unchecked with the current
imbalance of global power, ought we not to give some consideration to
the dangers of corruption?
Some have observed that in the decade since the demise of the Soviet
Union the United States has exhibited a 'raw arrogance of power.'33
They conclude that the decision to overthrow the government of Iraq
marks 'a culmination in the rise within the United States of an immense
concentration of unaccountable power that poses the greatest threat
to the American constitutional system since the Watergate crisis.34
Whatever one's assessment might be with regard to this characterization
of the recent actions of the United States, re-examination about America's
role on the world stage is justified.
As I reflect upon aspects of the National Security policy, and some
of the interpretations of it, it seems to me that this policy of militarism
leaves little room to exercise true leadership in the global community:
that is, alleviating the solvable problems of poverty, malnutrition,
and many of the diseases that afflict those in the Two-Thirds World.
We must make a preferential option for the vulnerable: that is, the
poor, the marginalized, the elderly, children, the sick and disabled,
the unemployed and underemployed. Consideration for how foreign and
domestic policies affect their needs is the mark of true moral leadership.
The cost of militarism globally is one of the great tragedies of the
20th century.35 Great power struggles have been played out over the
backs of the poor for decades, with many impoverished nations spending
more on the military than on development.36 Furthermore, war in the
latter half of the 20th century has been marked by mass rape, starvation
as a weapon of war, genocide by machete, and widespread torture, revealing
humanity's capacity for escalating forms of brutality and dehumanization.37
The policy of militarism does not break the vicious cycle of violence.
Moreover, the human cost of militarism also includes the aftermath of
war: with millions of refuges and displaced persons struggling to survive,38
living in camps where the women and children have not washed for weeks;
and prisoners have not washed for months.39 The aftermath includes children
who find land mines or grenades, and lose limbs or even their lives.
The vulnerable are deprived of the basic necessities of life and re-live
in their minds the trauma of what has befallen them, long after the
bombing stops.
Militarism does not work toward our security, but rather our collective
insecurity. This brings to mind the famous question of the popular psychologist
Dr. Phil [McGraw], who might ask at this point: 'How's it working for
you?' Can the means we use for national security create the conditions
that would bring about the peace and security we seek? The National
Security policy notes that the United States has 'unprecedented -- and
unequaled -- strength and influence in the world.' Perhaps, the test
of real strength may be in intelligent, disciplined restraint in terms
of the use of sheer power to do harm. The test of true strength may
be in applying the gamut of resources, i.e., intellectual, moral, spiritual,
scientific and economic to work for just peace in the volatile hotspots
of the world; to alleviate the distress of the most vulnerable in our
societies.
The Struggle for Peace in a Fallen World
Because the stakes have escalated, we need to think beyond the terms
of deciding when we can go to war and begin thinking more aggressively
about greater options for peace in a fallen world. The National Council
of the Churches of Christ in the United States, in its policy statement
Human Rights: The Fulfillment of Life in the Social Order, states that
'Christians believe that human beings are made in the image of God,
that every person is of intrinsic worth before God, and that every individual
has a right to the fullest possible opportunities for the development
of life abundant and eternal.'40 That statement is in keeping with the
theological premises of the Churches' Center for Theology and Public
Policy's statement. We have to ask how our actions in the world are
conducive to supporting the development of life abundant in the entire
global community. Now more than ever, as Christians, we must agitate
for disarmament, peacemaking, and peacekeeping, for 'the people of the
world have a right to peace.'41
Part of the challenge is working for a new understanding of the word
'power.' We tend to think of power in negative terms, such as power
over against others. To continue to conceptualize power in this way
is to act counter to our best interests. Duane Friesen maintains that
'power is the creative and positive force which defines our humanity
as made in the image of God.'42 I believe that he is correct. The United
States, because of its power in a number of arenas, has a unique opportunity
in history to break the cycle of violence, to exercise leadership in
the transformation process of the global community, from war-making
into peace-making. We need to image power
more creatively and wholesomely. Imagine the difference this nation
could make in the world if we celebrated the invention of 'smart' vaccines
for SARS and AIDS than the invention of 'smart bombs.' As you can see,
the struggle for peace demands a transformation of values.43
As Christians we must recognize that political behavior is an essential
component of God's creation of human beings.44 It is a moral, perhaps
spiritual, work, to be engaged in the task of coordinating, structuring,
and organizing human social life for the sake of human survival and
human creativity. This we do, as human beings made in the image of God,
redeemed by the work of Christ, and empowered by the Holy Spirit. On
the other hand, policies which lead to coordinating, structuring, and
organizing human existence for the sake of death cry out for our repudiation
and agitation for change. Power in the service of what Jon Sobrino calls
the 'divinities of death' is not genuine power at all, for true power
serves life.45 With humility and much grace, we can visualize, plan,
and create something better for the world community. Even small steps
toward peace-making, diffusing debilitating ethnic and religious conflicts
through serious mediation with the help of international organizations,
such as the United Nations, would leave us far better off than we are
now.
The road to peace involves working toward bold initiatives and new strategies
that recognize our interdependence and common security issues.46 (cf.
White,75) This entails hard work. It is not enough to say, 'War is not
the answer,' or 'Give peace a chance.' Those of us who clamor for peace
must engage earnestly in pressing for concrete, effective strategies
to meet the special challenges that terrorism, genocide, 'ethnic cleansing,'
and tyrannical rule present in the global arena.
Even as we begin to re-conceptualize power in new ways, we must also
keep in mind that our agitation for peace is done in the context of
communities where the human exercise of power is often corrupted by
sin.47 So that as we marshal our collective resources for new solutions
to the old problem of human conflict, we realize that we do not engage
in peace-making out of a naïve sense of optimism about inevitable
human progress or a misguided notion that we can end all violence and
conflict. Rather, we proceed with the understanding that peace-making
is part of our call to discipleship. We realize that our good deeds
will not redeem history, but our obedience to God in being peacemakers
and ministers of reconciliation will render us participants in God's
redeeming activity in our world.
Endnotes
1The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September
17, 2002, www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html, 1.
2Ibid.
3Ibid, 2.
4Ibid.
5Ibid.
6Ibid.
7Ibid, 3. Emphasis added.
8Ibid, 5.
9Ibid, 1.
10Ibid, 10.
11Ibid, 18.
12Ibid, 19. Emphasis added.
13Crawford, Neta C., 'The Best Defense, The Problem with Bush's 'Pre-Emptive'
War Doctrine, Boston Review, 28.1, 4.
14Ibid, 2. Cited from the British Ambassador to the United States Henry
S. Fox in a letter to U.S. Secretary of State Daniel Webster, 12 March
1841, in Kenneth E. Shewmaker, ed., The Papers of Daniel Webster: Diplomatic
Papers Volume I, 1841-1843 (University Press of New England, 1983),
42.
15Ibid, 3.
16Ibid, 4.
17Ibid, 3.
18Ibid, 5.
19Ibid, 6. Emphasis added.
20Ibid.
21Ibid, 7.
22Ibid.
23Ibid.
24Ibid, 8.
25Ibid.
26Ibid, 9.
27Elliot, Michael, and Carney, James, 'First Stop, Iraq,' Time Magazine,
March 31, 2003, 173.
28Crawford, 'The Best Defense,' 11.
29Ibid, 12.
30White, C. Dale, Making a Just Peace, Human Rights & Domination
Systems, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998), 81.
31This phrase has been attributed to Dorothy Day.
32Schell, Jonathan, 'American Tragedy,' The Nation, April 7, 2003,
4.
33Ibid, 5.
34Ibid, 4.
35White, Making a Just Peace, 67.
36Ibid.
37Ibid, 68.
38Ibid.
39Maass, Peter, Love Thy Neighbor, A Story of War, (New York: Vintage
Books, 1996), 3.
40White, Making a Just Peace, 18. Quotation from the National Council
of the Churches of Christ in the United States (NCCC) policy statement,
Human Rights: The Fulfillment of Life in the Social Order.
41White, Making a Just Peace, 19.
42Friesen, Duane, 'Power: An Ethical Analysis From a Christian Perspective,'
Essays on Peace Theology and Witness, Occasional Papers No. 12, ed.
Willard M. Swartley, (Elkhart, Indiana: Institute of Mennonite Studies,
1988), 73.
43White, Making a Just Peace, 75.
44Friesen, 'Power: An Ethical Analysis From a Christian Perspective,'
77.
45Ibid, 78.
46Ibid, 75. Emphasis added.
47Ibid, 78.
Bibliography
Churches' Center for Theology and Public Policy, Christians and War
in the 21st Century: A Theological Analysis, (Washington, DC, 2002)
Crawford, Neta C., 'The Best Defense, The Problem with Bush's 'Pre-Emptive'
War Doctrine,' Boston Review, 28.1.
Elliott, Michael, and Carney, James, 'First Stop, Iraq,' Time Magazine,
March 31, 2003.
Friesen, Duane, 'Power: An Ethical Analysis from the Christian Perspective,'
Essays on Peace Theology and Witness, Occasional Papers No. 12, ed.
Willard M. Swartley, (Elkhart, Indiana: Institute of Mennonite Studies,
1988).
Maass, Peter, Love Thy Neighbor, A Story of War, (New York: Vintage
Books, 1996).
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September
17, 2002, www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html
Schell, Jonathan, 'American Tragedy,' The Nation, April 7, 2003.
White, C. Dale, Making a Just Peace, Human Rights & Domination
Systems, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1998).