All good points. The thing I don't understand is what will a few cruise
missiles do to stop the regime in power from using chem weapons again -
if they are the ones who actually used them in the 1st place?
LarryT
On 9/9/2013 10:18 AM, Craig wrote:
On Mon, 9 Sep 2013 06:37:40 -0700 (PDT) Curt Raymond
<curtlud...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Now you're confusing your wars, you mean Hitler and Tojo.
You left yourself open before, we used nukes against an aggressor
country, thats fair game, the Japanese knew retribution was coming.
Syria is a different ball of wax though I'm not completely convinced
yet about who exactly unleashed the chemical weapons. Maybe I'm just
jaded but I don't trust anything I see on television. Sure it looks
like those people had been gassed but I can set that up in my backyard
in 2 hours...
Interesting that this came up now and that I received an email from
Breakpoint about the subject this morning:
========================================================================
In response to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, would a U.S.
strike against Syria be justified in light of the principles of Just War
theory?
Just War theory helps Christians think about war within a Christian
framework. From Augustine to Aquinas to the Reformers, Christian thinkers
have generally agreed that for a war to be just, it must meet the
following conditions:
* The cause itself must be just -- as well as the intention
behind going to war.
* War must be waged by a legitimate authority.
* Force used in war must be proportionate to the threat and
must not target non-combatants.
* War must be a last resort, and there must be a reasonable
chance of success.
Let’s look at each of these in regards to Syria. And folks, I think
you’ll see with me that there are no easy answers here.
First, is the cause just? The Obama administration is making the case
that it must act to stop the Assad regime from using chemical weapons.
That certainly does seem like a just cause.
However, as Gerard Powers at the Institute for Peace Studies at Notre
Dame writes, just cause is “generally limited to defense against
aggression.” In Syria, as in most civil wars, both sides are aggressors.
In Syria, we would be taking sides, not acting against aggression.
That brings us to the question of intention. Sen. John McCain added
language to a Senate resolution that would commit the U.S. to changing
the momentum on the battlefield in favor of the rebels, which is highly
problematic from a just war perspective.
Legitimate authority poses another tricky question. The administration
points to the 1925 Geneva Protocol against chemical weapons and the 1993
Chemical Weapons Convention signed by 189 countries. However, as the
Washington Post points out, there is no enforcement mechanism in these
documents. And many countries, friend and foe alike, are questioning the
legality of a U.S. attack without U.N. approval. (Of course, if the U.S.
were acting in self-defense -- which we aren’t -- the U.N. wouldn’t be an
issue.)
Now proportionality: According to Gerard Powers, “the overall destruction
expected from war must be proportionate to the good to be achieved.” In
that sense, launching missiles to destroy the Syrian military’s ability
to launch chemical attacks seems reasonable. However, it also appears
that the Syrians have begun hiding military assets in the midst of
civilian populations. Aiming for those assets would put many civilian
lives at risk.
And it’s possible that a U.S. “intervention” could lead to more chemical
attacks, a regional war, or a jihadist takeover of Syria. As Rabbi
Michael Broyde wrote in the Huffington Post, “In the real world, just war
theory has to actually work, and not just theoretically work. Doing
nothing is a moral option when doing anything makes a bad situation
worse.”
Another question: Are we at the “last resort” stage? Have we exhausted
all diplomatic and economic options? I don’t know that we have.
And finally, do we have a reasonable chance of success? Answering this
one requires that the administration and Congress define what success is
before we go to war.
Hard questions; no easy answers. That’s where we are. On the whole, my
sense is that an American attack on Syria probably would not meet the
standards of just war.
I wonder how Chuck would have seen it. How do you see it? Come to
BreakPoint.org, click on this commentary, and share your thoughts. And
while you’re there, please check out some important articles we’ve
gathered on the topic of Syria, including a great piece by my BreakPoint
colleague Roberto Rivera.
And in the meantime, I’ll pray for our leaders and for peace. And I hope
you’ll join me.
===============================================================
Craig
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
_______________________________________
http://www.okiebenz.com
To search list archives http://www.okiebenz.com/archive/
To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to:
http://mail.okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
