2 of 3

Opinions differ, however, about whether the U.S. has just cause.

"The burden of proof is high for anyone who would claim to act preemptively," says David Gushee, associate professor of moral philosophy at Union University. "Just-war theory is a paradigm to make resorting to war law-governed and debatable in a public setting. It establishes the basic perimeter that use of force must be the last resort. You never initiate an attack. It is a defensive theory."

Gushee says that for a nation to strike first it must show irrefutable proof of "hostile intentions, massing of forces, or otherwise clear evidence you are about to be struck." He says that in the current situation, this is not the case, at least not by the evidence thus far presented to the public.

"The threshold has not been reached," he said. "In fact, I think that the U.S. or Israel is more likely to suffer a catastrophic use of weapons of mass destruction if we attack Iraq first than if we were to use nonmilitary means to accomplish our goals."

Robert McGinnis, Family Research Council's vice president of policy, says that two requirements must be met to justify an attack on Iraq: irrefutable evidence connecting Hussein to the attacks of September 11 and proof that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are being prepared for imminent use.

"If you fulfill these, an attack is justified because we have been struck and will be struck again," McGinnis told CT. "The president has an obligation to communicate why he is asking our nation to sacrifice, as well as why he is willing to sacrifice combatants and innocents on the other side."

Skillen agrees that the U.S. has to prove imminent danger. However, questions about Iraq's intent to attack other nations or use weapons against them, he says, have to be separated from the war on terrorism. Whether Iraq is planning to launch aggressive efforts or whether it funds terrorism are two different issues that should not be confused, Skillen argues.

On top of that distinction, he says, the U.S. has to prove why the need for action is now urgent.

"Part of what has to be presented for further military action is an argument that we are no longer in a position to withstand Hussein doing what he has always done," Skillen told CT. "In other words, we need to show that what we have been doing in the past is no longer sufficient? If we are not in a worse position than before, what has to be shown is not that he simply is an evil guy. We have to know that the capability is there in his hands, is intended, or could be used tomorrow in a devastating way."

Some Christian leaders say that the U.S. already has enough justification for an attack. "We need to remind ourselves that we were attacked on September 11," says Richard Land. "An act of war was committed against us. If you are looking for just cause, we have already passed that threshold."

He says that Hussein's refusal to allow weapon inspections and his previous assassination attempt of former President Bush also constitute grounds for preemptive strike. Land says the Iraq situation passes just-war criteria of last resort and proportionality. "The only way we will remove the threat is to remove Hussein," he says. "The human cost of not taking Hussein out and removing his government as a producer, proliferator, and proponent of the use of weapons of mass destruction means we can either pay now or we can pay a lot more later."

next page... |  2 of 3

share this page

September (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46