[1] Jean Bethke Elshtain opens Just War against Terror
by asking a simple, but crucial question. "What Happened on
September 11?" is the title of the opening chapter, where she
challenges her readers with two different interpretations of that
terrible day in New York, Washington, D.C. and western
Pennsylvania. The first is Pope John Paul II's judgment that
the day was an "unspeakable horror." The second, contrasting
view is that of Osama Bin Laden and Islamic terrorism. Bin
Laden described acts of cold-blooded murder and calculated mayhem
as a "glorious deed." Elshtain sets the tone for the book by
refusing to grant both perspectives equal validity. She
firmly agrees with the Pope's version of events, and in doing so
agrees C.S. Lewis's principle that we live in a moral
universe. This premise informs Elshtain's book and
makes it vital reading.
[2] Although September 11th led to a moral clarity and wartime
atmosphere possibly not seen in the United States since the bombing
of Pearl Harbor 63 years ago, our unity and implicit agreement
about the war on terror faded quickly in some cases.
Many American institutions, in particular the mainline Protestant
churches, have seen their leadership unable or unwilling to make
ethical distinctions between those who would defend us and those
who would destroy us. One chapter, "The Pulpit Responds to
Terror," addresses a statement made by the U.S. Episcopal bishops
on September 26, 2001, "calling for the United States to 'wage
reconciliation.'" Elshtain points out that "The bishops do
not tell us with whom and precisely how this reconciliation should
be waged, considering that the terrorists are not responsible
political leaders with a legitimate mandate and they have not
issued a set of negotiable political demands." She contrasts
the moral utopianism and political naiveté of the Episcopal
bishops to Pope John Paul II's message that terrorism is a crime
against humanity, and that fundamentalist terrorists are "radically
opposed to belief in God." John Paul concludes by stating "We
acknowledge..the right and duty of a nation and the international
community to use military force if necessary to defend the common
good by protecting the innocent against mass terrorism." By
drawing a contrast between these religious leaders, Elshtain
compels the reader to decide between radically different positions,
and to take sides in a matter where there can be no reasonable
compromise.
[3] To her credit, Elshtain goes beyond simply pointing out the
flaws in anti-war arguments which postulate moral equivalency
between the two sides. In support of her views, she revisits
classic texts and reasserts norms of just war, the functions of
governments and nation-states, and the ethical justification for
political and military action. In the chapter "What Is a Just
War?" Elshtain references Martin Luther, Thomas Hobbes'
Leviathan, and St. Augustine. Specifically, she
asserts the case for just war:
The presupposition of just
war thinking is that war can sometimes be an instrument of justice;
that, indeed, war can help to put right a massive injustice or
restore a right order where there is a disorder…Indeed,
there are worse things than war. The twentieth century showed
us many of the worse things, including gulags and genocides.
The world would have been much better off if the violence of
particular regimes had been confronted on the battlefield earlier;
fewer lives would have been lost over the long
run.
[4] This is moral reasoning of a high order, which challenges
pacifists and anti-war activists to define precisely why avoiding
war is preferable to the alternative in each specific case.
Although war everywhere, against every injustice, is neither
plausible nor likely, confronting amoral, brutal states such as the
Taliban's Afghanistan or Saddam Hussein's Iraq is a viable option
in the just war tradition. Elshtain helps provide a framework
for reasoned debate on these crucial issues.
[5] One of the strengths of Just War against Terror is
Elshtain's ability to address United States action, along with our
coalition partners, against rogue states such as Afghanistan and
Iraq. Other writers have editorialized in both secular and
religious journals that U.S. attacks violated the U.N. charter and
principles of international law. In "Taking Terrorists at
Their Word," Elshtain cites a September 18, 2001 resolution passed
by Congress giving President Bush "authority under the Constitution
to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States." She argues that sovereign states
such as the U.S., acting under the rule of law, have ample legal
authority to defend themselves by passing laws such as the
September 18, 2001 resolution and the Patriot Act. In the
same chapter, she puts the controversy over the Patriot Act and the
authorization of military tribunals in historical context.
She points out that Presidents Lincoln and Franklin D. Roosevelt
both authorized military tribunals during wartime, and there is
ample precedent for their use. Elshtain cites Justice Robert
Jackson's statement that "the Bill of Rights is not a suicide
pact," in the course of explaining that the American tradition of
rights and freedoms was not intended to protect terrorists whose
goal is to subvert the domestic and international order.
[6] Although much of the book, especially "Taking Terrorists At
Their Word", can be appreciated from a secular viewpoint, Elshtain
buttresses her arguments by citing 20th century theologians, such
as Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr. Tillich and Niebuhr
tackled the issue of just war in the context of both World War II
and the Cold War that ensued. Tillich specifically called out
Germans in a series of broadcasts into the Nazi regime, urging them
to resist the criminal and unjust regime which waged war in their
name. In doing so, Tillich drew distinctions between the
Nazis and the democratic forces fighting them, in a memorable
passage quoted by Elshtain:
It is a military necessary
to bombard and to reduce places to rubble in which the enemy is
entrenched. It is a military necessity to destroy factories,
bridges, and depots on a forced retreat. But it is not a
military necessity to make a wasteland out of a country, to drive
the inhabitants before you, or to leave them for death. It is
not a necessity to wipe out the enemy nation….It is not a
military necessity to massacre millions of women and children and
old people, directly or indirectly...
[7] Tillich's service to just war theory, Elshtain argues, lies
in how "he addresses the question of the obligations of whole
nations and peoples and makes us think about what the world would
look like if those who know no limits in their frenzy to destroy
indiscriminately were given free rein." Implicit in her
argument is the idea that Christians who advocate non-judgmentalism
and non-violence in the face of divisive, immoral violence
practiced by terrorists are shirking their obligation to their
fellow humans. The pacifist ethos may have limited
applicability within the context of societies such as India under
British colonial rule, where Gandhi successfully brought about
peaceful change. As Elshtain reminds us, non-violence and a
spirit of moral purity are useless against amoral societies such as
Nazi Germany, who act outside the boundaries of civil society and
international law.
[8] Elshtain also tackles the politically sensitive but vital
topic of why Islam has not spoken out against organizations such as
al Qaeda and individuals such as Osama bin Laden.
She postulates that the lack of central authority or texts other
than the Qur'an have resulted in a theological void filled by
extremists who lack credentials. The chapter "The Problem
With Peace" also addresses evasions of the issues by groups
claiming to speak for Islam, who fail to condemn terrorism
unequivocally. Perhaps the most compelling passage is
Elshtain quoting Salman Rushdie:
[9] "Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic
slander that 'the Jews' arranged the hits on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon…For a vast number of believing Muslim men,
'Islam' stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the
fear of God - the fear more than the love, one suspects - but also
for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include
their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of
'their' women; the sermons delivered by their mullahs of choice; a
loathing of modern society, in general, riddled as it is with
music, godlessness and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and
fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surrounding could be
taken over - 'Westoxicated' - by the liberal Western-style way of
life."
[10] The author portrays this crisis within Islam as fundamental
to the rise of hatred, jihad and terror, and portrays the
views described and condemned by Rushdie as "self-exculpatory" and
evasive of the true issues. The lack of true debate within
Islam, and inability to call out terrorism as contrary to religious
values, has limited the war against terror in both a religious and
ethical sense.
[11] In contrast to those within Islam who rationalize violence
and terror, Elshtain writes of those who fight to normalize these
nations and societies. In an epilogue titled "Four Brave
Women," she relates the stories of brave women, fighting at
considerable risk, for justice within the Islamic world, from
Algeria, Uzbekistan, Somalia and Iran. Each woman is fighting
for a stable, peaceful society with a framework of rules and civil
order - the precise opposite of societies such as Saddam Hussein's
Iraq or Osama bin Laden's Afghanistan. Elshtain relates these
specific stories of courage, individuals fighting tyranny in the
tradition of a Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Vaclav Havel or Lech Walesa, to
one of the book's themes. She states that "violent
groups faced by these women's countries represent a threat to the
existence of a stable state - hence the possibility (there are no
guarantees) of a relatively stable civic environment itself."
As Elshtain and others have concluded, a Hobbesian world of
warlords, civil wars and vigilante action is rarely contained
within a nation's border. Hussein's Iraq twice invaded
neighboring countries - Iran and Kuwait - while bin Laden's
Afghanistan hosted terrorists who spawned the horrific 2001 attacks
on New York and Washington. In an interconnected world,
societies and states which fail can bring death and destruction not
only to their neighbors but nations around the globe.
[12] In an epilogue to the 2004 edition, Elshtain then addresses
the vexing questions regarding the ongoing Iraq War. She
reviews the four conditions for a justified war, and addresses
each. Although some will disagree with the conclusions she
draws, she makes her argument with moral seriousness combined with
realism that characterizes many valid approaches to addressing such
questions. Some opponents of Elshtain's conclusion, namely
that the Iraq war was justifiably pursued, will cite partisan
disagreement in the United States and United Nations to support
their arguments. Although counter-arguments are welcome,
showing disagreement within a democracy or group of democracies
hardly proves that Elshtain is incorrect and the Iraq war was
unjust from the outset. History shows that leaders who call
for just war, such as Lincoln in 1861 or Churchill in the 1930s,
rarely find unanimity within their states or without. The
author addresses these questions with the same gravity as these
statesmen, and helps set the tone for the ongoing discussion.
[13] Just War Against Terror is an important
contribution to the ongoing debate concerning military action by
the United States and its allies against rogue states and stateless
purveyors of terror. After three years of political debate,
followed by war and nation-building, both sides often use hackneyed
arguments and tired clichés to justify their
positions. In each chapter Elshtain asks the reader important
questions, draws parallels to relevant historical examples and
cites both religious and secular authorities. Although her
writing always considers both sides of the argument, she is
forthright in her defense of just war against those who would
destroy civil society, deny human rights and extend war on behalf
of radical Islam around the world. The best summary of her
viewpoint is found in the appendix citing "What We're Fighting
for," which states "Organized killers with global reach now
threaten all of us. In the name of universal human morality,
and fully conscious of the restrictions and requirements of a just
war, we support our government's, and our society's decision to use
force of arms against them." This is a compelling position,
which its opponents will have to confront in all its dimensions in
the continuing debate on the war on terror.
See Elshtain's
response.
© October
2004
Journal of Lutheran Ethics (JLE)
Volume 4, Issue 10