Ethics of the War on Terrorism
By John M. Swomley,
Professor Emeritus of Social Ethics
St. Paul School of Theology
Most American Christians have not examined the war against terrorism from the standpoint of Christian ethics. The major religious organizations have either automatically supported whatever the President has proposed or have remained silent about its implications.
The American Catholic Bishops as a body announced publicly their vote (267 to 4) to support the war against Afghanistan. "Most of the heads of the other monotheistic religions in the U.S. from Billy Graham on down," according to The Jesus Journal, did not mince words "about their desire to give spiritual and conscience comfort to the American war effort." There is no indication that President Bush, who claims membership in the United Methodist Church, consulted Methodist leaders, or that they approached him.
Without raising the long-debated issue of whether Christians should be pacifists, it seems to me there are several ethical issues involved in the wars already undertaken or proposed by the President. The first is President Bush`s declaration of war against an entire nation for harboring one man, Osama bin Laden and his agents.
Is it ethical to kill, wound and deprive many thousands of civilians of their homes in order to locate or kill one or more criminals when those civilians or their nation had not declared war or acted against the United States? The Bush Administration may not have recognized this as a problem, because throughout the war, Americans received no independent report of the civilian casualties as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, accompanied by men in uniform, briefed the press and the American people.
However, XTRA, the magazine of the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), provided early information about casualties. It reported that there may be over 3,000 civilian deaths and that "both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have voiced strong concern about the loss of civilian lives and separately called for a moratorium on the use of cluster bombs."
Agence France Presse noted that refugees from Kandahar "spoke of tremendous civilian casualties when wave after wave of American bombers" targeted the city. It reported that "two months of relentless bombardment have reduced the city of Kandahar to a ghost town," with no water or electricity and scarce food, "housing only the famished who were too poor to leave" (Dec. 6, 2001).
The ethical question here is not whether one man should be crucified for an entire people, but whether an entire people should be forced to suffer for one man whom they did not elect or choose as their leader.
The second ethical question is what gives the United States or any nation the right to make war on nations that have not attacked it or harbored someone like bin Laden? In early June President Bush told graduating West Point cadets America must "be ready for pre-emptive action" against evil nations. "We are in a conflict between good and evil and America will call evil by its name."
If all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, how can one evil person or nation call others evil?
None of the nations Bush called "evil" have attacked the U.S. or other nations in recent years. Even if we examine the total record of these nations for years, all of the so-called evil nations together have not been in as many wars or killed as many people as has the United States in World War II, the Korean War, the Gulf War, and wars in Latin America. None of those nations have been accused of harboring terrorists or exporting terrorism.
Even if some nations are adjudged to be evil, why should they be accused by only one nation instead of the United Nations or an international court of law? In other words, there are no objective standards of good and evil, and no neutral or world body to serve as judge. If all nations or many of them have sinned, what gives one nation with the world`s greatest military and economic power the sole right to judge evil in less influential nations?
The third ethical question is how do economic factors rather than discussions of evil determine or contribute to incentives for war? A number of sources reveal the connection between oil and Afghanistan, and oil in Iraq, and war. Various publications in other countries allege that oil is a major factor in the war against Afghanistan. A French book about John O`Neill entitled Bin Laden; The Forbidden Truth, soon to be published in the U.S. states that O`Neill was the chief FBI investigator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other bombings of U.S. property in the Middle East; and that shortly before 9/11/01 he left the FBI protesting that Bush-related groups and oil agencies had interfered with his investigation.
Other publications such as one from Pakistan and the Asia Times in Hong Kong have raised questions about reported work on an oil pipeline in the Caspian region before 9/11/01. An article by the widely respected Israeli writer Uri Averney, a former member of the Israeli Knesset, in the Israeli journal Ma`aretz in February noted, "If one looks at the map for the big American bases created for the war [against Afghanistan], one is struck by the fact that they are identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean." That pipeline was planned by a Texas oil company prior to the September attacks.
It may be too early to assess the impact of economic factors relating to the Afghan or projected Iraq war, but Christians would be naïve to dismiss the possibility that there may be multiple reasons for a powerful nation to wage war against lesser powers.
Another ethical question is related to the fact that the U.S. Constitution specifically states that Congress alone is granted authority to declare war. Yet news reports indicate that some leading Democratic Party members of Congress have already endorsed the Bush decision to invade Iraq. Aren`t the American people entitled to a full debate in Congress before making future wars?
For example, the Covert Action Quarterly, founded more than 22 years ago by former U.S. intelligence agents to document U.S. intelligence activities at home and abroad, contains in its Spring issue a well-documented account of "U.S. designs on Iraq." It begins with a statement that "In January 2001, outgoing Secretary of Defense William Cohen advised the incoming [Bush] Administration that `Saddam Hussein`s forces are in a state where he cannot pose a threat to his neighbors . . .` and Scott Ritter, outspoken former U.S. Marine and U.N. weapons inspector, has reiterated this assessment."
Then followed a six-page discussion on Israel and U.S. allegations about Iraq`s program designed to demonstrate that Iraq is a serious military threat. It was Israel and not Iraq that introduced nuclear and chemical weapons into the region, whereas Iraq`s Hussein had "advanced an alternative: the transformation of the entire Middle East into a nuclear, chemical and biological weapons free zone." Also, Iraq signed a Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The U.N. Security Council, following the Gulf War, imposed sanctions on Iraq; but today only the U.S. and Britain favor continuing sanctions. They continue because U.N. rules require unanimity among the Security Council`s permanent members.
The article in Covert Action Quarterly said it is a mistake for opponents of war against Iraq to focus solely on sanctions and their human cost; we must know that a lot more is at stake. For example. "there are more than seventy oilfields in Iraq, only fifteen of which have been developed."
Another ethical question relates to the pattern of expansion of U.S. military power after such wars. Professor Bruce Cumings of the University of Chicago noted that the Pentagon has announced "a new commitment to bases in Central Asia, an air base near Bishtek, the capital of Kyrgzstan, that would hold up to 3,000 troops; massive upgrading of existing military bases in Uzbekistan . . . and Pakistan . . . creation and expansion of remaining military bases in Afghanistan" and other "airfields in locations on the perimeter of Afghanistan."
This appears to be a pattern, since the Pentagon maintains bases and troops in various previously-conquered nations such as Germany, Japan, Okinawa, South Korea, the Kuwait vicinity, and various other places in the Mid-East, all of which Cumings calls a "garrison state." (The Nation, March 4, 2002). Is it ethical for the U.S. to maintain such an effort at world control or containment as one war after another is fought?
There is also, perhaps most important, the problem of nuclear war. The Bush Administration has not only begun drafting a first or preemptive-strike policy, but Vice-President Cheney spoke of using nuclear weapons against "unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction" who "can deliver those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to their terrorist allies" (USA Today, June 11, 2002). That would not only be in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but would induce the spread of nuclear weapons.
The whole pattern of first-strike authority and of "evil states" declared on no other authority than that of President Bush may present other ethical questions. But one question is clear.
Will any nation which automatically claims the right to invade, bomb, and destroy other nations imply that because a majority of that nation are Christian that it is operating under Christian values? In the mind of Muslims or Hindus or those of other religions, will they assume this is the way Christians operate? Certainly many Americans already identify some nations with a majority of Muslims as representing Muslim values.
