Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, March 1, 1991                   TAG: 9103010703
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A-13   EDITION: METRO  
SOURCE: PAXTON DAVIS
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

PERSIAN GULF

Ronald Reagan called the war in Vietnam "noble." Few any longer agree. George Bush called the war in the Persian Gulf "just." Was it?

Early Christianity opposed all wars. But the gradual absorption of Christianity by the Roman Empire necessitated consideration of when and under what conditions the Christian objection to force - especially to returning evil for evil - might be reconciled with the demands of the secular state. St. Augustine, among others, wrote extensively about it.

The result has been the gradual development of what theologians call "just war theory: the argument that war can be reconciled to Christian doctrine only if certain conditions can be met.

"Just war theory" has extended far beyond Christianity itself, of course; but those who accept its logic contend that a war can be morally acceptable only if it meets all the requirements.

These include:

A just cause, such as self-defense.

Right intentions.

High probability of success.

Public declaration of intentions.

Protection of non-combatants.

Proportionality.

War is a last resort, when peaceful measures have failed.

It is upon the violation of one or more of these conditions that much of the criticism of Bush's war against Iraq depends. Pacifists object to war under almost any condition (and generally are willing to pay the consequences of conscientious objection). Believers in "holy war," like Saddam Hussein and many Moslems, have few followers in the United States. But a significant number of Americans - especially including the American clergy - have condemned the war and argued publicly against its moral justification.

Bush's own pastor, for one, opposed the war in the Persian Gulf long before it started and has been forthright in saying so. The Most Rev. Edmund Browning, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A., says that "a great shadow has fallen over what appeared to be a bright new landscape." Addressing the World Council of Churches, meeting in Australia, Browning contended that the "new world order looks suspiciously like the old, with bombs and bullets doing all the talking."

Bishop Melvin Talbert of the United Methodist Church argued before the same body that "the most patriotic thing religious leaders in our country can do is stop the war."

Their contention, with which many churchmen and others agree, is that the war in the Persian Gulf failed to meet the conditions that would make it "just."

David Little, a scholar at the U.S. Institute for Peace, contends that the Gulf War fails the test in three important respects:

1. Protection of non-combatants: The destruction of a Baghdad shelter two weeks ago with two 2,000-pound bombs dropped by a Stealth aircraft brought the deaths of hundreds of Iraqi civilians hiding there. Whether the mistake was on Saddam Hussein's part or the "coalition's" remains uncertain, but the carelessness is not.

2. Proportionality: Bush's stated goal was to force Iraq out of Kuwait. But how many people had to be killed to accomplish it? Official American spokesmen claim land-war casualties have been "remarkably" few. But even one death, to many, is excessive, and most would agree that the goal does not justify the slaughter the air war inflicted.

3. The "last resort": Did Bush wait long enough to initiate the air war? Did he wait long enough to launch the ground war? Did he consider in good faith the peace initiatives of United Nations Secretary General Perez de Cuellar, or King Hussein of Jordan, or Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev? Many of us believe not. Many in Washington - including, it is reported, many Bush intimates - believe he was spoiling for a war with Iraq and never seriously considered any of the numerous efforts, before war began or afterward, to avoid it.

Many of those who supported the war loudly condemned all objections to it as "unpatriotic." It might cool their fervor to consider upon what moral foundation that objection rests.