this should be read no matter what your opinion is djf -- Article: Just War - or a Just War? By By JIMMY CARTER -- this should be read no matter what your opinion is djf

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

[ I welcome reasoned comments for IP djf]

Just War - or a Just War?

March 9, 2003
By JIMMY CARTER 

ATLANTA - Profound changes have been taking place in
American foreign policy, reversing consistent bipartisan
commitments that for more than two centuries have earned
our nation greatness. These commitments have been
predicated on basic religious principles, respect for
international law, and alliances that resulted in wise
decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent determination
to launch a war against Iraq, without international
support, is a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked
by international crises, I became thoroughly familiar with
the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a
substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these
standards. This is an almost universal conviction of
religious leaders, with the most notable exception of a few
spokesmen of the Southern Baptist Convention who are
greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on
eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined
criteria. 

The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all
nonviolent options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is
obvious that clear alternatives to war exist. These options
- previously proposed by our own leaders and approved by
the United Nations - were outlined again by the Security
Council on Friday. But now, with our own national security
not directly threatened and despite the overwhelming
opposition of most people and governments in the world, the
United States seems determined to carry out military and
diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the
history of civilized nations. The first stage of our widely
publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 bombs and missiles
on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the
first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so
damaging and demoralizing the people that they will change
their obnoxious leader, who will most likely be hidden and
safe during the bombardment.

The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and
noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with
precise accuracy, inevitably results in "collateral
damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of American forces
in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of
the military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques
and private homes. 

Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have
suffered. Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes,
American efforts to tie Iraq to the 9/11 terrorist attacks
have been unconvincing.

The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by
the society they profess to represent. The unanimous vote
of approval in the Security Council to eliminate Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, but our
announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to
establish a Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying
the ethnically divided country for as long as a decade. For
these objectives, we do not have international authority.
Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted
the enormous economic and political influence that is being
exerted from Washington, and we are faced with the
possibility of either a failure to get the necessary votes
or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although
Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous
financial rewards and partial future control of the Kurds
and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic Parliament has at
least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of
concern. 

The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over
what exists. Although there are visions of peace and
democracy in Iraq, it is quite possible that the aftermath
of a military invasion will destabilize the region and
prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at
home. Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the
United States will undermine the United Nations as a viable
institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war
after such a great deployment of military forces in the
region? The heartfelt sympathy and friendship offered to
America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly
antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated;
increasingly unilateral and domineering policies have
brought international trust in our country to its lowest
level in memory. American stature will surely decline
further if we launch a war in clear defiance of the United
Nations. But to use the presence and threat of our military
power to force Iraq's compliance with all United Nations
resolutions - with war as a final option - will enhance our
status as a champion of peace and justice.

Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, is
chairman of the Carter Center in Atlanta and winner of the
2002 Nobel Peace Prize.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/09CART.html?ex=1048170690&ei=1&en=
b9c95660094bf724

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/