The Complexities of Just War

An issue that has puzzled me for years: Just War. What is a just war? It seems almost like a paradox. But when the alternative is extreme injustice around the world, where do we draw the line?

I can feel the weight of these questions even as I transcribe them. They are questions worth asking and deeply contemplating. They are questions that, honestly, I like to push back into the corner and forget.

First off, something that concerns me: tying international development funding to defense funding. Specifically we see this happening in the Department of Defense right now, and it concerns me. When the man providing your family with food and water shows up at your doorstep wearing a uniform and carrying a weapon, my eyebrows raise quickly. Meanwhile, without security, funding/aid will have little effect. If we allow corrupt governments to flourish, they will only overwhelm those we try to help, and perhaps turn our gifts of "aid" against us. Also, if we don't find a way to help shape the worldviews and political ideologies of those we help, who is to say they won't use our resources to raise up the next generation of insurgents? Case in point: the US military's training of what is now the Afghan army during the late Cold War years (to fight Russia). How do we hold all of these different tensions in the balance?

Now to further preface this discussion: as weird as it may sound, I love political philosophy. It's part of how I was made; I was made to thrive on these discussions. Some of my political philosophy courses helped me better connect my worldview with practical conversational applications within the disciplines of political science and public policy. They helped me put skin onto the bones of what I already knew and cared about, but didn't seem to know how to articulate it to an audience that is often hostile towards followers of Christ. Essentially, working through the difficulties of these issues, with head and heart moving in tandem, I learned how to connect what I believed with the way that I approached the world-certainly a humble beginning of a lifetime of learning.

Still, I face difficulty in trying to sort out these issues. Perhaps that's why I feel the need to persist in sorting them out, rather than merely settle for easy, quick solutions. To further this discussion, I do not think that there are easy, quick solutions to this issue, or perhaps to most problems facing the politician/policymaker. Confessedly, my approach to these issues is salted by a variety of influences-some you might call "bad" influences and some you might call "good," but all, mind you, are humans made in the image of God who are also fallen. And now, I could start running away from my original discussion. So, back to it. What do we do with the John Rawls' of the world, the Immanuel Kants? Neither seem to have a workable enough theory for me to stand beside it whole-heartedly.

Another complexity worth mulling over: If God's commands of "love thy neighbor as thyself," and "love thine enemies" extends to all of life, then what does this mean for the soldier who kills his "neighbor" in the heat of battle?-Can one be a follower of Christ everywhere but the battlefield? Surely not! -Conversely what do we do with the situation of a "neighbor" whose very livelihood is threatened by another? Do we stand by and let violence and oppression happen because we hold firmly to a doctrine of peaceful resistance? Let's take the argument further. Perhaps son, daughter, wife, parent, are targetted by a killer. Does the husband watch them die or stand up and do something, and what is something and how does he approach that something?

You may at this point be thinking: surely she shouldn't be bringing up such questions, rousing debate and controversy for seemingly no reason. But then, if we live in a democracy, where our vote-atleast symbolically-affects who is in office making decisions on such issues-should we not try to educate ourselves in order to become informed voters? Hard on crime or soft on crime, where do we stand and why?

I have yet to find a political philosopher who has sufficiently laid out just war theory for me in a way where i'm fully convinced of its legitimacy. Perhaps this is because a tension burns within my heart to see justice through a peaceful "turning of the cheek" so that we leave room for God's wrath; but such a turning is not always a viable reality when we stare the world's Hitlers squarely in the face. Conversly, I am also struck by the humanity of the Osama Bin Ladins of the world, and the fact that they are not beyond redemption. They can't be...(Last fall reading a book by Philip Yancey, What's So Amazing About Grace, raised this issue for me). Yeah this point may hit some, really hard, but I think it's true. If we are to believe that God extends salvation to the worst of sinners, including Paul, and even us, we must believe that his grace can extend too to horrific "criminals" like Osama. (There are some more delicate issues that I will not touch on here, but the extreme point is made for the sake of just that-making a point-not examining the habits of heart that led Osama down his particular path.) So where do we forgive, and where do we stand up for the oppressed? How does this work itself out?

Perhaps it is easy for us as Americans to forget the weight of such questions, as we live in a country where war has not been waged on our soil for a long time, and where death and human need can seem distant and unreal. These things are real, and I want to approach them with renewed eyes. As we near the anniversary of September 11th, just war remains a concept worth pondering.

And now perhaps I have annoyed you in bringing up such complexities. I haven't given you any answers, but rather only a plethora of questions. However, I raise these issues to make you think. And that is all i'll say for now.