Modern objections to free societies in the developed world engaging in military operations for other than purely defensive purposes stem from a variety of interrelated concerns that merit exploration. There are post-nuclear anxieties over precipitating global Armageddon that include related concerns that place international ‘stability’ as paramount. There is also a squeamishness to interfere in even the most bloody of internal affairs perhaps because of guilt over past colonial jingoism in which a putative ‘advanced’ culture was imposed by force upon a ‘backward’ one.

Consequently, over the past century tens of millions have perished at the hands of their own governments [and to a lesser extent by loosely affiliated ‘militias’] while the ‘civilized’ world did too little too late. The reasons for this will be explored and alternative arguments will be offered. The idea that an objective standard for official behavior will also be examined with an emphasis upon whether some forms of governance are valid and worth protecting while others are illegitimate and even malignant for those within and outside the borders.

While the now-notorious carnage ensued in Bosnia-Herzegovina, European Lutherans debated whether Just War doctrine could be “rehabilitated and possibly used to justify humanitarian military intervention.” In the late summer of 1993, the Lutheran World Federation resolved to condone last-resort use of military force “on humanitarian grounds” if it is also sanctioned by an international body. However, delegates from the  European Youth Conference rejected even this standard. They explained that the UN is not immune to undue influence from the “major industrial nations” which would threaten to push for hostilities before “all nonviolent means of resolving a conflict have been exhausted, as the just war doctrine demands.” They further explained that “any war, whether just or unjust, radically destroys faith as well as culture”(CCF).

By the Spring of 1993, the “rapes, constant shelling, and ethnic cleansing” that was ongoing in Yugoslavia’s carcass was well-known. Reports of systematic rape including “girls as young as six and eight years old” were deliberately being used as demoralization/intimidation tactics -- as well as altering the ethnicity via the resultant impregnations. The mass-slaughter was also known at the time [as was the Serbs’ unwillingness to negotiate the  spoils of war], but many in the West nonetheless called for further ‘patience.’ Economic sanctions should be given more time to work, they said. At that time, the Christian community also cited the well-known Seven Criteria for Just War elucidated in the pastoral letter drafted in the 1983 National Conference of Catholic Bishops as being met save for one (Wall 56).

Certainly there was Just Cause. Additionally recognized as extant were Competent Authority [which implied a UN sanction], Comparative Justice [there was clearly a right and wrong side], Right Intention [not to conquer, but save], Last Resort [Serbian intransigence offered no alternative] and Proportionality [the civilian suffering while nothing was done would be lessened by intervention]. The last criterion, Probability of Success was doubtful according to many. Contemporary Western military commanders explained that “nothing short of an all-out attack on an enemy, supported by large ground forces” would bring the wholesale atrocities to an end. The aggressors well knew at the time that the Western Powers certainly hadn’t the belly for that, whether the military capability existed or not (Wall 57). Thus, the suffering continued until either one side conquered the other in some places. It was finally brought to an uneasy conclusion after President Clinton ordered a high-altitude bombing campaign in March 1999 (Arnn) that contributed to Milosevic’s ouster and arrest in 2001 (CBC).

Eschewing military conflict simply because the enemy seems invincible is “rather immoral, not to say spineless,” according to London University philosophy professor A. C. Grayling, “to avoid engaging in an otherwise just war because it threatens to be too costly.” Cited as counterpoint is the example of the Polish resistance to the 1939 NAZI onslaught – although doomed to failure – it provided a “moral victory” to the Poles [as was also the case with the Finns against the invading Russians]. It later “proved an inspiration to others" (Grayling 120-2). Furthermore, history has shown that overmatched adversaries can indeed prevail over numerical/technological/economic disadvantages if there is a sufficient countervailing advantage in comparative resolve. So who is to say which struggle is futile? If a nation is facing total destruction by a conqueror, successful resistance cannot be attained without even trying.

To forgo resisting tyranny is not peace, because tyranny is not only the cause of war -- it is in itself war. As Ayn Rand Institute senior writer Andrew Bernstein noted, the major wars of the twentieth century were started by “dictatorial monarchies” [Hohenzollern Germany, Tsarist Russia], totalitarian dictatorships [fascist Italy, militarist Japan, NAZI Germany, Soviet Russia] as well as smaller ones by authoritarian regimes such as General Leopoldo Galtieri’s Falklands invasion and Saddam Hussein Kuwait adventure. Dr. Bernstein observes that “dictators are in chronic war against their own people” and thus have no qualms against exporting violence beyond the borders. It is in their nature to do so (Bernstein).

Certainly the tens of millions who perished in the Soviet Gulags, Mao’s Cultural revolution, Pol Pot’s Killing Fields, etc. were not experiencing peace. Yet those in the civilized world and their international institutions had little to say in criticism – much less was there a thought of taking any measures to stop the slaughter (Rummel). Much of this was due to moral relativism and the fact that the UN itself is corrupted by accepting as members states that have governments held into place by force. Thus there was no possibility of establishing any standard as to which government behavior is acceptable. Free markets and free speech are thus to be regarded as equally valid expressions of native culture as are torture chambers and show trials (Bernstein). The only standard that was left as agreeable in international law then was respecting the sovereignty of other states.

Although we may not ‘like’ the regime and what it is doing to its own people, so say the current magpies of 'stability,' to intervene would invite disorder. Rutgers Religion professor James Turner Johnson explains that such a “morally sterile” concept stems from a tacit reversion to the 1648 Westphalian agreement for states to not meddle in each others’ affairs. This was perhaps needed at the time to stem years of bloodshed between inherited autocratic kingdoms. In today’s world however, it has only too often served to “protect tyrants while they oppress, rob, torture, and kill the citizens of their nations.” This was recognized by some as insufficient, so some theologians provided for military force being used “for humanitarian intervention only so long as there were no national interests being served” (Johnson 18). Even this distinction should be considered insufficient, because it is arguable that stopping government-sanctioned violence and establishing freedom can have positive effects outside the borders – including for the arresting force’s country. Does this potential benefit for others preclude stopping widespread torture, summary executions, ethnic cleansing, etc.?

As the technical means of making war became more destructive in the late 19th century, a reversion to the Westphalian system became more attractive for some. The advent of nuclear weapons and other WMDs has created a constituency for considering all forms of warfare to be immoral/unthinkable under any circumstances. [There were also hopes that war would be eliminated by the supposed “increasing perfection of human social institutions.”] Only if in defense against a direct attack can military force be justified. This is certainly not in accordance with Aquinas’ provision that defense is but one of many other reasons justifying force. Its use stems from the “responsibility of government to protect order, justice and peace -- not simply from the fight to respond to an attacker in kind” (Johnson 19).

In his critique of realism, Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study professor Michael Walzer described how Athens considered it necessary to conquer an island Spartan colony called Melos. Not because it posed a threat, but to not do so would be seen as a sign of weakness and thus threaten the continued existence of Athens’ empire. Dr. Walzer points out that the moral preservation of such was not a given necessity nor morally justified, however (Walzer 7-8).

Simple rivalry between tyrannical regimes cannot be sufficient to justify a resort to arms, so a distinction must be made between the international politics of the ancient world and that of Christian-sanctioned rule. From Aquinas’ day until the era of modern popular government dawned [with the founding of the United States], the king was sovereign by Divine Right. Dr. Johnson quotes Romans 13:4: “For [the ruler] is God's minister to you for good.” As such the Crown is understood to resort to arms “only on public authority and for the public good” as he alone is Divinely inspired to discern (Johnson 16).

But there was a concurrent development toward what we now recognize as Natural Law. A form of rudimentary popular self-government seems to have developed simultaneously before the earliest civilizations were established, according to Yale Political Science professor emeritus Robert A. Dahl. Then a long period of despotism ensued as people began to settle in large groups. Later, in ancient Greece and classical Rome, the concept of participatory government in a civilized society developed -- to a point. In medieval Western Europe, local assemblies emerged which gradually inured people to the idea that government policy/leadership should be subject to popular consent (Dahl 7-21).

The concept that there are immutable objective Laws that universally apply were adapted somewhat by Medieval theologians and jurists [such as Aquinas] to solidify the ultimate objective source of the Divine and to circumscribe the choices available to monarchs. As the Protestant Reformation led in turn to a general questioning of authority structures, the people themselves were increasingly seen as the source of legitimacy rather than what could be conferred by clerics in the form of a crown. Catholic University history professor Kenneth Pennington goes on to explain how popular sovereignty found it’s ultimate expression in the Declaration of Independence in which it was recognized that all are born “with certain inalienable rights” that transcend whatever man can invent as either an ideal or a right to rule by force. Freedom was recognized as the optimal human condition -- to which all people are entitled -- that fosters peace and prosperity (Pennington 15).

The idea that tyranny could be considered an equally valid ‘alternate lifestyle’ that is endemic to some cultures is not only absurd – it is dangerous. What seems to have been forgotten by many since WWII is that it is not possible to contain, appease or otherwise live in peace with tyranny – at home or abroad. So it is not only permissible, but obligatory for free societies to intervene when dictatorships oppress their own and threaten their neighbors. Regimes that are not legitimized by a popular mandate are not entitled to sovereignty. Concerns of precipitating a global conflict by resisting tyranny have not been proven correct by recent history.

Objections to any and all war due to fears of a WMD-borne Armageddon have been given lie by the actual conflicts that have occurred since WWII. Dr. Johnson notes that recent military actions have been “civil wars and regional armed conflicts…[that have] been bloody, sometimes genocidal, sometimes terroristic [and] always characterized by violence directed toward noncombatants.” Rather than military force decisions having all been inherently wrong, it was “the choice to fight for immoral reasons and/or by immoral means” (Johnson 20).

Nations that are committed to fostering the natural rights with which we are all born can neither morally nor practically be satisfied with simply defending against attack. In presenting what amounts to such societies’ responsibility to maintain “peaceful social order,” Dr. Johnson notes that some current Just War theory commentators have a more realistic and workable perspective. He reminds us how Pope John Paul II had said that “intervention may be ‘necessary where the survival of populations and entire ethnic groups is seriously compromised.’” In a Catholic Church Catechism drafted in 1997 it is observed:

---

REFERENCES