I know, it is hard to understand and hard to really know what is going on, but what role does the U.S. play, or should we play in this situation?
The Syrian government is allegedly attacking their own citizens to quell a rebellion that is based on a desire for popular democracy. It appears that the Syrian Army is attacking neighborhoods and civilian areas; so women, men, and children are dying at the hands of the government.
Should the American Government/Military intervene? If so, how?
As Catholics we believe that any sort of "war" action must adhere to "Just War Theory (Doctrine)." From the Catechism:
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:Obviously this brings up a lot of questions. Are we, the United States, responsible for "...the common good."? Do we have serious prospects of success in a situation like Syria? What is success in such a situation?
- 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.
There are a lot of complicated questions here. Add to this the fact that we just now winding down operations in Iraq, and you can understand how this is a sensitive subject.
•••
 |
| from 2009 |
They are very close to nuclear weapons. John Bolton, former Ambassador to the United Nations has been on T.V. non-stop over the past 3 days arguing this point.
Israel has stated they are ready to strike, and although the current U.S. Administration has called for more sanctions as the course of action, Israel is on the verge of "going it alone." Friend and "Foe" alike do not want Iran to have nuclear weapons. Why? Because it isn't just Iran that would have them. It would create a "proliferation" scenario and that spreads like wildfire, with no way of containing it. It is much easier to prevent, then to pull back - the escalator situation. It is much easier to ride an escalator down, then to try and walk back up that down escalator.
How does "Just War Doctrine" apply in this situation? Is this a pre-emptive strike? Is this damage, and would it be lasting and grave? Does the mere possession and potential use of nuclear weapons constitute "damage inflicted"?
These are difficult questions. These are also pressing questions that a lot of folks may not be aware of. I know it is lent, and many people are looking internally, but I cant help but look around the world and wonder if other nations perceive the U.S. to be in a state of instability due to our economy, and if they aren't taking advantage of that fact in militaristic terms.
U.S.
What should we be doing, if anything, about these situations? If we don't act yet, at what point is it appropriate? Is it more just to be isolationists as much as possible? Certainly our own people and country are the primary responsibility of the government and the military. Yet, I have to wonder, if because of the nature of these situations, and our relative military standing in the world, if we don't fall into the role that many begrudge us playing: "Peacekeeper."
It is hard to deny that we have some responsibility for upholding the "common good" around the world, especially when it strategically relates to who we are. I will admit, I was once quite "Hawkish" in my military beliefs, but I dont believe that the Syrian situation is about hawks and doves. It might be at the point that it is about humanitarianism.
The Catechism at 2314 states:
Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation. A danger of modern warfare is that it provides the opportunity to those who possess modern scientific weapons -- especially atomic, biological, or chemical weapons -- to commit such crimes (CCC 2314).If this is occurring, does it place us in a just role to intervene? Again, this is not an easy question, and the picture doesn't always look black and white. I don't think these situations are going to settle themselves and at some point I see the United States getting involved in either one or both of these scenarios, whether or not it falls within "Just War Doctrine" parameters or not.
†††
5 Comments so far - Click to Comment::
There is serious, legitimate intelligence showing that the Syrian Rebels, while largely pro-democracy, are working very closely with Al-Qaeda. We can't afford Islamists coming to power in Syria. That is not our war.
Iran, on the other hand, is our responsibility. Nobody else in the world has the ability to take out those nuclear sites, and destroying them is in the best interest of the entire world. Nukes shift power balances, and an unstable (mentally and politically) despot whose stated goal is the destruction of Israel (our ally) at any and all costs is dangerous beyond belief. If you think the middle east is unstable now, just wait until Iran has a nuke.
Dear Joe,
Thanks for bringing up this sensitive topic.
I posit the following:
Many Catholics (I'm thinking of Santorum and his ilk) bring a presupposition to this discussion BEFORE the considering the Just War doctrine. That presupposition is "the United States must defend Israel as if she were one of the several states." In other words, there is no distinction between Israel and, say, Florida.
I disagree with this presupposition, for more or less obvious reasons. Instead, I take as a presupposition the following:
CCC 2308: All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war. However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."
Starting from this premise, rather than the Israeli premise, I fail to see how war against Syria or Iran pertains to the U.S.'s right of lawful self-defense. There are plenty of arguments for pre-emptive war out there, but I side with Aquinas as being generally against it.
I think that most American Catholics agree that the U.S. has arrogated to itself the mantle of "international authority" spoken of in the Catechism passage above, and further, that they consider it to be an overall good thing. Some do not aspire to such a global vision of U.S. power, but their fallback is unswerving devotion to Israel and its interests.
Morally, I don't see how an American Catholic can use these arguments to trump the Catechism's obligation to work for the avoidance of war. If a Pope were to order a Crusade, I would likely think differently--but as you know, our two recent Popes (both of whom are FAR more acquainted with the real smells and sufferings of war than most Americans) have not favored U.S. invasion of the Middle East. I would appreciate knowing how much weight you give to direct Papal statements on the U.S.'s most recent wars.
I definitely think it's in everyone's best interest if Iran does not get nuclear weapons. Fortunately, even the EU is behind that stance, and if it should come to war, I don't think we'll be alone.
I agree with MB, " I fail to see how war against Syria or Iran pertains to the U.S.'s right of lawful self-defense."
Syria's Christian population - about 3 to 4 million souls - is terrified that Assad will fall and the islamists will take over. There is no question this insurgency/uprising/movement is tightly associated with islamist elements and is being funded and aided at least by Turkey, and possibly some other countries as well. I don't like Assad, but he does leave the Christian population largely alone. There is a significant probability that his replacement will be worse.
Post a Comment