Caesar Alloquitur: Save Mosul; Save Iraq

The Case for War in Iraq to Crush the Islamic Militants

According to the Just War Doctrine of the Catholic Church

Pope Blessed Urban II preaches the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont.

Introduction

The recent events in Iraq in conjunction with our withdrawal of troops has been nothing short of disastrous for the people of Iraq. We far from achieved a victory over our foes in the Jihad movement, for a variety of reasons. We may be tempted to say, "it is not our problem." However, it is our problem. Seeing as how this editorial is for a Catholic lay movement, I can only speak for us. Not all Iraqis and Middle Easterners are Muslim - far from it. In fact, the Middle East holds Christian communities that not only predate Islam but can trace their birth to the Apostles.

Perhaps the more appropriate word is, "held."

Ever since the American Invasion of Iraq, Christians have suffered. Blamed for American intervention and with Islamic militancy on the rise, bringing back the old hatreds, inevitably Christians became targets. Contrary to what you might expect, the American military didn't exactly stop to help these Iraqi Christians for a variety of reasons. What happened in the end of it all was that the Middle Eastern Christian communities were almost utterly wiped out. Churches from ancient times reduced to rubble. Entire families and communities put to the sword, and the survivors fleeing to foreign countries for some kind of shelter.

St. Bernard of Clairvaux

As Catholics, we have a responsibility to our brethren. The same kind Saint Bernard admonished our ancestors to uphold when he preached the Crusades: we must protect them from oppression when it is in our power to do so. If we are a soldier armed with a weapon, and we see an unarmed and defenseless person being assaulted and robbed by a bandit and we have the ability to intervene, we should most certainly intervene.

It is my staunch belief that the only thing that will put an end to the tyranny of Islamic Militancy in the Middle East is a campaign aimed squarely at exterminating them. The, "War on Terror" was a farce and I haven't met a veteran yet who didn't say that themselves before I ever brought it up. In fact it is there testimony that brought me to this conclusion. What's needed is a new strategy and a new approach. But that's not what we're here to discuss today. I believe a case can be made for war in the Middle East; a case more strong and compelling than the reasoning for the last. One where the goal is the destruction of Islamic Militant groups and undoing the damage they've done to the lives of millions of Middle Easterners; a plan that includes not only rebuilding the Middle East with the use of native grass-roots agencies and the like, but also re-settling those who have fled the country for their own safety.

Seeing as how we are Catholics, I will be speaking primarily of them and their interests throughout most of this, but I will not forget the Muslims who are just as much victims as anyone else of these radicals. As Alfonso VII of León and Castile, King of Galicia, and First Emperor of All Spain proved, it is possible for a Catholic leader and monarch - and right - to be a patron of the Church and protector of Muslim subjects all while fighting against aggressive Islamic powers. In his case, it was the Iberian Moors.

Before going any further, I want to reiterate that point: it is possible and proper to wage war against enemies who are a particular religion and/or race, call them on that, and use that against them, and call a spade a spade without persecuting those of that religion/people who are your subjects. This is one of many abilities Medieval/Ancient States seemed to have that modern ones (particularly the United States) just never seemed to quite grasp. Must be because they were so unenlightened. I'm glad we all are now! Who needs real tolerance, anyway?

But enough of my sarcastic snark. On to where Just War Doctrine in the Church actually comes from.

Origins of Just War Theory and Thought in Catholicism

 

Saint Augustine

There are many arguments to be made in Catholicism - and Christianity in general - for the necessity of violence in some cases using scripture. However, due to the contentious nature of Scriptural Interpretation, I will shy away from these and stick to the Church Fathers and Doctors who knew more about Scripture than most of us ever will. Saint Augustine wrote tracts for every single verse of every single Psalm; I advise anyone with the time to read his tracts on the Psalms. 

But what's Saint Augustine got to say about Just War? Well, considering Augustinian Theology and Philosophy addresses it in many of his key works, I'd say quite a few important things. Before addressing it, he reminds readers and listeners that first before anything we must ensure virtue occupies a "sacred seat" in our hearts. Only then can we make a decision about something like this.

In City of God, speaking of the necessity of acting in self-defense, Saint Augustine of Hippo actually says that to remain peaceful in the face of a wrong that can be hindered by physical action is a greater sin than the violent action undertaken.

"They who have waged war in obedience to the divine command, or in conformity with His laws, have represented in their persons the public justice or the wisdom of government, and in this capacity have put to death wicked men; such persons have by no means violated the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill.'"

Why would Saint Augustine feel the need to speak on this? Was he simply blowing hot air? Hardly. There was a growing concern among Christians, particularly after the Martyrdom of the Theban Legion and other similar incidents, concerning whether or not it was right for Christians to serve in the Legions for a nation which at times oppressed them. Saint Augustine pointed out that many of Rome's wars at the time conformed to the idea of Just War. At this time, barbarians were invading Rome in record numbers and with terrifying force. Many Christians - as Martin Luther would later say, concerning what should be done in the face of the Ottoman invasions of Christendom's Eastern March - felt Rome deserved what it was getting and should be left to fall. Saint Augustine rebukes this arguments in City of God in detail, taking several sections to refute all the arguments and point out how Rome had been good for Christianity and in reality the oppression was also sporadic and had not been a constant policy, nor was it consistent with Rome's policy of religious toleration in the Empire.

A Marine prays the Rosary during the Korean War. Minutes later, the 1st Marine Division launched an offensive against entrenched communist troops during the Korean conflict.

It's true the United States doesn't have the most awesome track record when it comes to Just Wars. In fact I could safely assign it thus far as having one of the worst. But for those of us living in the US, it is our country. While we have no obligation to be still and silent in the face of what it does wrong, that should not hurt the fact we are loyal at least to those around us. If I can say one thing in closing on the subject of the US: if it did decide to go to war with the goal of stamping out Islamic Militancy, in parameters of Just War and Practice (as we are about to continue going into) we have every obligation to our Catholic-Christian brethren to enlist and help protect them from these devilish dervishes. Our presence and support would, inevitably, perhaps make us able to keep the US military from going into its usual excesses in the field.

In closing on what Saint Augustine has to say about Just War, it's important to remember he also states we should not look for nor create situations wherein Just Wars occur for our own benefit or profit, because:

"But, say they, the wise man will wage just wars. As if he would not all the rather lament the necessity of just wars, if he remembers that he is a man; for if they were not just he would not wage them, and would therefore be delivered from all wars."

This can perhaps serve as comfort to the more peacefully-inclined among us here today. The fact we

must fight war is lamentable in some regards. However, when it is just, we must fight it and fight it to the end. To make an example of an American Hero (one with whom I disagree with on a few topics of his time), Sergeant Alvin York reasoned during World War One that the only way to stop the violence and war he detested overseas was to put down the aggressors as quickly and efficiently as possible. This lightning-quick reasoning so simple and so profound only a huntsman of the Appalachians could think of it lead to one of the most incredible and awesome displays of American gallantry in the Great War, and one of the most legendary since

 

Saint Thomas Aquinas

Now we come to the true heavyweight of Catholic Theology on the subject of Just War: Saint Thomas Aquinas. Saint Thomas Aquinas is the father of scholasticism, and considered not only one of the greatest theologians in Catholic history but one of the most brilliant philosophical minds in the Western World. Even the Summa is littered with philosophical insights on the subject of Aristotelian philosophy that even the most stalwart and virulent atheists have admitted there was wisdom in the mind of this Dominican, much as those who considered this large and soft-spoken Italian a "Dumb Ox" in the seminaries were left awestruck after he put pen to paper and wrote his works.

St Thomas Aquinas, between Plato and Aristotle.

So what does the Angelic Doctor have to say on the subject of Just War? Not very much. Mostly, he builds on Augustine's thoughts. In his groundbreaking work, Summa Theologica, he says on the subject of Just War, that three things are necessary:

• First, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority such as the state. (Proper Authority is first: represents the common good: which is peace for the sake of man's true end—God.)
• Second, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (for example, "in the nation's interest" is not just) or as an exercise of power. (Just Cause: for the sake of restoring some good that has been denied. i.e., lost territory, lost goods, punishment for an evil perpetrated by a government, army, or even citizen population.)
• Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence. (Right Intention: an authority must fight for the just reasons it has expressly claimed for declaring war in the first place. Soldiers must also fight for this intention.)

Note: this is only a scholar's summary of what is said. The full text of what Aquinas himself says in the Summa can be found in this link.

 

The School of Salamanca

The old library of the University of Salamanca.

Francisco de Vitoria

The School of Salamanca refers to a theological-philosophical system of thought developed heavily based on Thomistic ideas and process, and is named after the University of Salamanca in Spain where it had its origins. It was pioneered by one Dominican Theologian Francisco de Vitoria, a wise Spaniard educated in Paris and elected to the Prime Chair of Theology at Salamanca in approximately AD 1526 until AD 1546. From that position he promoted a renaissance of Thomism in the university and was often consulted as a scholar by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (Or Charles I of Spain). From his efforts and writings eventually the Salamancan School of thought developed, which has a lot to say about Just War.

It is no surprise when one examines the historical air which Francisco breathed and under what monarch he lived that Just War would be a subject on which he and his contemporaries would have a lot to say. Not only was Charles V embroiled in wars for the survival of the Empire against perfidious Protestants and marauding Muslims and irate Italians around the Papal States. On top of all that, it was during the reign of Charles V in which the wars in the Americas began to pick up steam and conflict was inevitable.

Fan Art of Cortez and the Spaniards beholding Tenochtitlan for the first time. Not pictured here: mass human sacrifice and the oppression of many minority ethnic groups by the Aztec Empire (see: Tlaxcalan and others) which outraged the recently-liberated Spaniards.

Charles V at Mühlberg

Francisco like many had concerns about the treatment of the native populace in the Americas. Charles V shared his worries, seeing as how of all things at the time Charles simply could not monitor conflicts on the other side of the world when he had enemies surrounding all four walls of Christendom and he was the one looked to as the primus inter pares of Medieval Europe to lead the way - which he did. To say the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries of Europe were eventful and adventurous would be an almost insulting understatement.

So Charles and many Spanish authorities were concerned about how they should properly prosecute wars against the Native Americans without it turning into a mess, or without injustice becoming rampant Charles himself had a reputation as a chivalrous warrior-king, and he didn't take that lightly, evidenced in how he despaired at a mutiny of his imperial soldiers which lead to a Sack in Rome. Francisco de Vitoria and the School of Salamanca put forth the following concerning Just War:

• In self-defense, as long as there is a reasonable possibility of success.
• Preventive war against a tyrant who is about to attack. (note: that link is not an accident. What is a "tyrant" must actually be defined to prevent it being slapped around as a general term for, "ruler we don't like.")
• War to punish a guilty enemy.

So it's not much different as to what makes carrying out war Just from the Thomistic thought. But the Salamancan Just War Theory goes beyond simply what makes a reason for going to war just. It expands even more as to how a Just War must be carried out in order for it to remain just. In Salamancan thought on the subject, the beginning of a war being based on just reasoning alone does not make it just throughout.

The outlines for a just war are as follows:

• It is necessary that the response be commensurate to the evil; use of more violence than is strictly necessary would constitute an unjust war.
• Governing authorities declare war, but their decision is not sufficient cause to begin a war. If the people oppose a war, then it is illegitimate. The people have a right to depose a government that is waging, or is about to wage, an unjust war.
• Once war has begun, there remain moral limits to action. For example, one may not attack innocents or kill hostages.
• It is obligatory to take advantage of all options for dialogue and negotiations before undertaking a war; war is only legitimate as a last resort.

So this makes things a bit more interesting. The Roman principle of Vae Victus ("Woe to the Vanquished," i.e. the conquered are the property of those who conquer them) which governed a lot of Western European warfare is challenged by these guidelines.

Points one and two are the most interesting because to me they are most open to discussion and debate. If the response must be, "commensurate to the evil," then how should we treat those who are as ruthless and callous as the Jihadists in the Middle East right now? Their future should a just army come upon them is not enviable by any stretch of the imagination, if we must respond in kind based on the evil the opposition has visited upon others. Furthermore, if we must not use more than is "strictly necessary," that means we must first define what is necessary and not shrink from doing it. It's a double-edged sword; on one hand, we must ask the question of how much is too much and set those limits. But it also leaves open space to do whatever is necessary to bring about victory.

The second point is equally interesting. A war can be illegitimate if the people oppose it, but seemingly only if the war itself is unjust. This makes full availability of facts and information for going into a conflict a necessity, without any bias; simple raw facts. I see great potential for conflict, here. Salamanca's thoughts go so far as to say the people have a right to depose a government waging an unjust war. That's harsh.

So clearly the outlines are hardly airtight, but they allow for plenty of room to not restrict combatants interested in prosecuting a just war for the sake of justice itself. I'd also like to point out that Francisco de Vitoria isn't canonized or even on the way to it. Why that is, I don't know, and as far as I know the School of Salamanca isn't considered heretical or near-heretical.

The Catechism and Other Church Documents

 

So at last we come to what Big Green has to say on the subject. This is, ultimately, the Church's modern "Just War Doctrine" built upon the continued stance promulgated by the teachers of the past. These are also, ultimately, what I will use to make my case for the justice of armed intervention in the situation in the Middle East.

Paragraph 2309 states the following:

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 modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

So here we see it all laid bare as one. The third point is the only one that comes completely out of left-field. I suppose what must be most reasonably meant is that we must possess the resources to carry out the war? Because as anyone with combat experience can tell you, no battle plan survives execution. Many wars which were assured victories were crushing defeats and many absolute failures have been turned into miraculous triumphs. I will assume, unless anyone has something saying otherwise, that is what is meant.

The following paragraphs reiterate and go into a wider depth concerning the points above. But nothing new or revelatory is brought up. I invite readers to look online for the Catechism and look up paragraphs 2310-2314 regardless for their own reading.

Applying This to the Present Crisis in Iraq

Blurred image stills of footage of ISIS militants gunning down pedestrians as they move into cities in Iraq. I've seen the original footage. It's not pretty and please believe me when I say it's not something you want to go looking for. Well, maybe you should, if that's what it takes to make you realize people are suffering right now because we're letting these brigands run rampant over the innocent.

With all the necessary education, I would now like to make the case - in conjunction with what else I have said about the situation on our Facebook, Tumblr, and YouTube channels - that military intervention in the Middle East aimed at eradicating Islamic Militants and undoing the damage done is not only just but a moral responsibility of the United States of America.

I shall begin with how, according to the Just War Doctrine promulgated in the Catechism and supported by the Doctors, Fathers, and Theologian-Philosophers of the Church, an armed intervention with the goal of destroying Islamic Militant groups by the United States of America would constitute a Just War. We will not be discussing strategy. That is a topic which requires full logistical information and such which I assure you, none of us here reading this blog are capable of getting or grasping, and even if they are, they're not allowed to talk about it. We can pipe-dream and speculate all day long, but what will and would work is ultimately inconsequential. In the first place, we must establish going to war is just in the first place. Furthermore, we shall assume for the sake of argument that the United States would also follow the guidelines hitherto established for a war to be just in practice (as unlikely as that is, given precedent). Right now, let's get some base for doing anything in the first place.

1.) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.

This one is interesting because it is preceded by saying these are the requirements for legitimate use of military defense. This could mean either two things, or both: that the enemy we are fighting against must have done something extraordinarily damaging which warrants violent retribution or that whatever we are going to unleash upon our opponent must be a blow crippling enough to stop an immediate resurgence, which could create a situation of total unending war. Both seem sensible.

Either way, the Islamic Militants have done lasting damage to the "community of nations" in the Middle East, so much so that one would have to be living in a cave with no internet or cable or human contact for thousands of miles to not know about it. It's clear they won't stop until someone stops them.

2.) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.

History and present realities have shown that the militants will not stop without physical force opposing them. They have an outspoken goal of dominating the world through Islam. If we thought our presence caused their existence directly, we were wrong, as the recent attacks intensifying after our departure have shown.

3.) There must be serious prospects of success.

This is why I think the US would, ultimately, have to be the nation to carry out this operation, or perhaps a combined NATO/UN effort. No one else has the resources or manpower to pull this off, logistically speaking. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States could destroy the Islamic Militants. But they lacked a proper strategy to combat them.

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

This passage is explained later in the catechism as applying to chemical and nuclear warfare. Should the US disavow these two approaches, there should be no problem.


Since we can only understand the Catechism in light of the teachings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, let's cross-examine these points with those previously made by those who wrote on the same subject prior to the modern age.

Saint Augustine

For Saint Augustine, I think, the issue about intervention being just or unjust would be clear. I think he would have reservations about the United States of America or any member of its military carrying out the operation, since it is clear that virtue doesn't really factor into most of US history. I think more than anything he would think a Catholic force would qualify for the job.

Perhaps if the countries in question were willing to swear to abide by the principles of Just War, he could be convinced. Maybe even if it was left up to the direction of virtuous, chivalric generals he would be convinced. But it's true that even most of the Roman Empire wasn't perfect. So perhaps he would be willing to give it a chance. I think, if anything, he would agree inaction was not the answer.

Saint Thomas Aquinas

The Angelic Doctor didn't have much experience with war. I think key to him would be that everyone involve understand what they are fighting for: to protect the people in the Middle East - particularly Christians - and to remove a consistent threat to the peace of Christendom. It is not about a genocidal war with the goal being the destruction of Islam. Though Aquinas himself had a low opinion of Islam and considered Mohammad of as "a robber and a tyrant," and frowned upon Islam's tradition of conversion by the sword, I do not believe he would sign off on religious and/or ethnic genocide. If things started going bad, he would be the first to demand things be set right and everyone gets back on course.

Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

Seeing as how I mentioned Saint Bernard's defense for the Crusades, I feel obligated to bring it up again. He was a preacher for the Second Crusade and a staunch friend of the Knights Templar. I think out of them all he would be the quickest to say, "Of course you should fight the Mohammedans if they are oppressing Christians! Why aren't you already? Where's the King of France? What do you mean there's no king? Well, the Emperor's still here, right?"

So maybe Bernard would have a bit of future shock (my sense of humor aside). I think out of all the saints herein he would be most eager to get the ball rolling. He attributed the failure of the Second Crusade to a lack of faith on the part of the Crusaders and their own sins. I believe his first and foremost concern would be the piety and zeal of the fighting force assembled. He would perhaps also sue for the resurrection of the Knights Templar or some new militant order and petition the pontiff to reinstate the Templar Order itself (as per the bull that disbanded them, only the Pontiff can reassemble them). Speaking of Popes...

Blessed Pope Urban II

Maybe now I'm stretching it, seeing as how I didn't really mention him and only used that piece of art for the header image. But ultimately the right kind of Pontiff who can inspire people to do this is important. Let's really take a moment to realize how impossible and suicidal the mission of the Crusades was. Let's also realize that this was the guy who got everyone willing to sell their possessions, drop everything, and go fight to save their brethren. Ultimately, a war effort like this will need some head or international figure who can inspire people to see it through. Whether people like it or not, the Pope is still one of the most followed and watched individuals on the face of the planet.

I love Pope Francis, don't get me wrong. But I don't think unless he's really pushed out of his comfort zone he could grasp the fact that sometimes violence is what has to happen to end and prevent more violence. More than anything right now we need a Julius II or a Alexander V or an Urban II or an Innocent III who understands that sometimes talking just won't get things done. Even if it's not a Pope, we need some kind of person who talks big and walks big who can make people stand up and fight back.

Also, the Pope who called the crusades is a Blessed. I'll bet you didn't know that.

 

School of Salamanca and Adherents

I believe, much like Aquinas, the key issue for the Salamancans would be Saint Thomas': do people know what they're fighting for, and are they prepared to act by the guidelines of Just War? I think the Salamancan adherents would be very picky about who is involved and who isn't. Who would try and exploit the situation for personal gain, rather than looking out for the Iraqis and Middle Easterners as well. I believe they would be partial to Spain. Perhaps they would be upset at the current state of the country. Maybe more upset at the state of their university. But if anyone would play moral police first, I think it would be them. Perhaps a committee or court of these guys monitoring the situation, or simply being a part of it, would be valuable to the whole process.

In Conclusion

We have a clear responsibility - the US most of all - to stop the situation in Iraq, as I've said before. This whole post was simply to point out how it would be very difficult for a Catholic to say that armed intervention is wrong carte blanche. Particularly when we have a very proud history of benign, imperialistic armed intervention which has the capacity to really get things done. Even if it has been stained, there is always a chance to do better, and the ideas are in place against which to judge others who attempt to aspire to them.

Perhaps this whole situation will blow over with time and the Jihadists will be driven back, run out of steam, or get torn apart internally by religious differences and simple power struggles much like the Ottoman Empire was. But I can't say; I can only work with what I know and what we have before us right now. What we have before us is a terrible situation that is our responsibility. We have to do something. We have to stand up and say this is our mess and for honor and justice's sake we're going to clean it up. If it takes temporal glory and benefits to convince someone to fight, in the least one can see that magnanimously going across the seas to defend innocent, free peoples from tyrannical forces of evil is right and just. After all, that's the official take on us in World War I & II, and it is celebrated to this day. So how is this any different in principle?

Even if the US doesn't have the proper precedent or reputation or modus operandi to do this without it getting worse, we as Catholics can still hold up our own ancestors with pride who fought and bled for just causes without second thought and ran to the sound of the battle for King, Country, God, Church, and Christendom. We can show them to the world, strip away the libel and slander applied to them and say, "It can and has been done; we did it before, and if God Wills It, we will do it again."