Would a war with Iraq be ethically justified?

'Roundtable Ethics' features University professors answering ethical and moral questions solicited from the community. The questions may range from personal to academic in nature.

To reflect the diverse range of personal and academic viewpoints on campus, a different professor will answer the questions each week. The 'Prince' hopes that the column will spark campus dialogue.

This week, Robert George discusses how to decide whether a war with Iraq would be just. The McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, George also directs the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

Got an ethical question of your own? E-mail The Page 3 Department.

How can we decide if an attack on Iraq in ethically justified?

Although the early architects of "just war theory" held that punishing past aggression is among the legitimate purposes of war, modern popes, from Pius XII to John Paul II, have been more restrictive. Ruling out retributive reasons for the use of military force, the popes teach that resort to arms can be justified only in self-defense, or the defense of third parties, against unjust attacks.

The development of just war theory to exclude retribution strikes me as sound philosophically as well as theologically. An appropriate regard for the sanctity of human life and the inherent dignity of the human person excludes killing or injuring even wrongdoers, not to mention noncombatants who always suffer as a consequence of war, except where it is necessary to defend potential victims of aggression.

Support nonprofit student journalism. Donate to the ‘Prince’. Donate now »

But if force may only be used for defensive purposes, should we conclude that pre-emptive military action can never be morally legitimate?

In considering a possible war against the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, some contemporary just war theorists have suggested that the pre-emptive use of force is by definition aggressive rather than defensive. In my view, this is incorrect.

A pre-emptive military strike qualifies as defensive when it is motivated by a reasonable belief that the use of force is necessary to prevent unjust aggression that is being planned or for which preparation is being made. Of course, such a belief is more likely to be reasonable when the regime being targeted is tyrannical and already has an established record of aggression.

So, in my judgment, the fundamental question on the basis of which we ought to settle our minds as to the justifiability of pre-emptive military action against Saddam is this: Is he likely to commit acts of aggression unless the U.S. and her allies use force to destroy or disable his regime?

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

The difficulty here, I submit, is not identifying the applicable moral principle. In this case, that happens to be comparatively easy. Rather, it is a matter of assessing the facts in light of which the principle is to be applied—a far more daunting challenge.

All just war theorists agree that force may be used only as a last resort, just as they agree that the measure of force used must be proportionate to the threat, and that noncombatants may not be treated as legitimate military targets. If non-violent (e.g., diplomatic) means are available and likely to succeed in defusing the threat of aggression, then they must be selected in preference to war (assuming that such means do not involve capitulation to serious injustice).

The disagreement over a possible war in Iraq is, for the most part, a debate between those who think that pre-emptive force is necessary to prevent further aggression by the Iraqi dictator, and those who think that Saddam can be deterred or contained without resort to war.

No one doubts that Saddam is a brutal tyrant who has engaged in aggression against his neighbors and even used chemical and biological weapons against his enemies within Iraq. Plainly his goal is to acquire a nuclear arsenal. So even many opponents of war against him would welcome "regime change."

Opponents insist, however, that Saddam can be prevented from obtaining nuclear weapons by U.N. enforced inspections, and that he can be deterred by the threat of U.S. led retaliation from using his non-nuclear military capability (including his stock of chemical and biological weapons) against the United States, Kuwait, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other possible victims.

Supporters of pre-emptive military action point to the fact that Saddam has a consistent record of defying U.N. mandates; moreover, they insist that weapons inspections have proven to be a complete failure. Unless Saddam is removed from power, they argue, he will obtain nuclear weapons and use them, or threaten to use them as part of a strategy of extorting concessions from his victims. In that case, deterring his aggression would require the United States to adopt the morally dubious policy of threatening to retaliate against Iraqi population centers if Saddam makes use of his nuclear arms.

There are intelligent and well-informed people on both sides of this debate. No one should be too confident that his assessment of the facts is correct. Supporters of war against Saddam should not label their opponents as "appeasers." Opponents should not attempt to tar supporters as "war mongers."

This is not to say that the debate should not be vigorous. Supporters of military action are right to remind people of the disastrous consequences of failing to act against Hitler's remilitarization of the Rhineland. Opponents may legitimately press their conception of the "lessons" of Vietnam.

While I personally place a high degree of trust in President Bush, National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice, Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, I am glad that critics of the Bush administration are asking hard questions. The administration and all of us really do need to consider, for example, whether war against Saddam will destabilize Pakistan and other Islamic nations, and whether in this or other ways war might adversely affect our efforts against Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations.

I'm also glad that such issues are being debated within the administration. I think we are more likely to get a sound policy if Secretaries Powell and Rumsfeld, for example, give full vent to the differences of judgment they evidently have.

Moreover, it strikes me as a healthy thing that there are Democrats like Joseph Lieberman and Bob Kerrey strongly supporting action against Saddam, and Republicans such as Chuck Hagel and Dick Armey warning against it. Moreover, I think that it is good for policy makers to know that people of faith are divided, with the Vatican, for example, urging restraint, and the Southern Baptist convention calling for forceful action.

Finally, I would stress the importance of strictly observing constitutional principles in any decision to go to war. Although I reject the idea that the United States is required by law to obtain the approval of the United Nations if it believes that the removal of Saddam by military force is necessary (though international support and cooperation is obviously desirable), I do believe that the President may not constitutionally go to war without the formal support — preferably in the form of a declaration of war — of Congress. On top of everything else, a war must be lawful if it is to be just.