NCR has pooled some interesting commentary and reaction from a variety of Catholic ethicists, who look at how the killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani does or does not fit in with the theory of “just war.”
The use of drones to kill terrorists would seem on the surface to limit the use of force, making it more “surgical” perhaps. However, it too has raised a number of questions that just war ethicists have been attempting to address ever since this technology became used more during President Barack Obama’s administration.
With the most recent targeted drone killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, one of the concerns I have is related to what Pope Francis in his 2015 encyclical, Laudato Si’, called the “technocratic paradigm.” That is, technology can incline us to take shortcuts, to prefer an easy fix, and to bypass other dimensions for finding solutions to problems, such as actual contact and communication with other persons.
In other words, and to return to one of the criteria of just war theory, was the turning to a drone strike really a last resort? Was there no time to attempt other avenues for dealing with the alleged threat? And going back to the criterion of just cause, was Soleimani really posing a clear and present danger? — Tobias Winright, associate professor of theological ethics and health care ethics, St. Louis University
+
Every pope since Vatican II has condemned war as contradicting the Gospel, causing violence to spiral ahead. Yet they have never condemned self-defense or defense of the innocent. This paradox sets the stage for our response to the present Iran-U.S. situation.
Killing Soleimani could be justified in just war terms because he was an ongoing perpetrator of attacks on U.S. and allied forces, and used terrorist tactics that did not spare civilians. Yet this analysis is hardly problem-free.
There is no firm evidence that Soleimani posed an imminent threat. Just war criteria of proportionality and reasonable hope of success were not clearly satisfied, given the further dangerous destabilization of relations with both Iran and Iraq, and the prospect of military escalation. — Lisa Sowle Cahill, J. Donald Monan Professor of Theology, Boston College
+
The use of force against Iran is only justifiable if it is tied to a realistic and serious effort to bring a just peace to a region that U.S. actions, such as withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement and especially the Iraq invasion, have done so much to destabilize. Rather than a muscular unilateralism, what is needed is restraint, dialogue and a commitment to use U.S. power and influence to promote cooperative security in the region.— Gerard Powers Director of Catholic peacebuilding studies, Kroc Institute, Keough School of Global Affairs, University of Notre Dame
There’s much more. Read it all.
After a quick perusal of the articles I am very disappointed to sense a very common assumption, justified or not, to attribute President Trump the worst of motives and to question any of his decisions with little to no support beyond the mere fact that they were taken by him.
I’m no fan of Mr Trump. I’ve never been. As a person, he embodies all the traits and ways of life and thinking about life I most despise; he awakens in me the worst of anti-Christian sentiments, to the point that I considered revealing my thoughts and words, full of contempt and empty of all charity, in the secret of the confessional.
That said, I have to begrudgingly admit that he has revealed to be a different person than the one I thought I knew, and that many of his decisions (particularly in his choice of pro-life judges) have been very much to be applauded. Some decisions I do not agree with, but I have to give him credit for being remarkably coherent with his electoral promises.
As for foreign policy, despite my initial fears of a nuclear confrontation, I am growing every day more persuaded that he’s the ideal person for the job, for reasons that would make this comment too long if I stated them.
Now, as for the doctrine of just war that these Catholic authors intend to apply to the assassination of the General Suleimani, I am of the opinion that either they do not apply or must be thoroughly revised in order to be applicable to the war on terror, which is a completely different ball game from the kind of wars the doctrine is based on. It seems irresponsible (contrary to the virtue of prudence) to me to condemn a decision without having done a careful study of the context and situation.
The context is that Iran has a terrorist government. I am from Argentina, where two powerful bombs destroyed the Israeli Embassy, killing 29 people, and the Jewish mutual AMIA building, killing 85 people. It is well known, and the judicial investigations have proven beyond reasonable doubt that high ranking officials in the Iranian government (including the Iranian ambassador in Buenos Aires!) had previous knowledge, and probably direct involvement in the attacks. Those are certainly acts of war on foreign soil that Iran would never admit to have any involvement in.
The orders of international capture had already been requested to INTERPOL when Obama was negotiating the nuclear deal. There are strong suspicions that the Iranians made a secret parallel deal with Obama’s US to put pressure on Argentina’s government, pressure that led to the withdrawal of the orders of capture. Another secret deal between Argentina’s government and Iran, pursuing the same goals, was uncovered by the district attorney in charge of the AMIA investigation, and he accused Argentina’s then president of high treason. The day before he was due to present his proofs to the Congress, he was found dead in his apartment, staged as a suicide. It is no secret that Hezbollah operatives with Iranian backing (and maybe with the green light of Argentina’s corrupt government) are behind this assassination as well.
This is just one among many examples of the way Iran has been operating since the Ayatollahs took power. This is no conventional war that easily fits the mold of the doctrine of just war and, again, it is very irresponsible (and obviously biased) to openly condemn Trump’s decision with painfully insufficient knowledge of the context. Neville Chamberlain sought appeasement of Hitler’s warmongering and, who knows, maybe a tragic war could have been avoided if deterrence had been employed instead. The history of the next few months and years will tell whether Trump’s decision to use deterrence averted another war. It might as well have done just that…