From today's NY Times:

=======================================

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Just War — or a Just War?

By JIMMY CARTER

ATLANTA -- Profound changes have been taking place in American foreign 
policy, reversing consistent bipartisan commitments that for more than two 
centuries have earned our nation greatness. These commitments have been 
predicated on basic religious principles, respect for international law, and 
alliances that resulted in wise decisions and mutual restraint. Our apparent 
determination to launch a war against Iraq, without international support, is 
a violation of these premises.

As a Christian and as a president who was severely provoked by international 
crises, I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and 
it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet 
these standards. This is an almost universal conviction of religious leaders, 
with the most notable exception of a few spokesmen of the Southern Baptist 
Convention who are greatly influenced by their commitment to Israel based on 
eschatological, or final days, theology.

For a war to be just, it must meet several clearly defined criteria.

     o The war can be waged only as a last resort, with all nonviolent 
options exhausted. In the case of Iraq, it is obvious that clear alternatives 
to war exist. These options -- previously proposed by our own leaders and 
approved by the United Nations -- were outlined again by the Security Council 
on Friday. But now, with our own national security not directly threatened 
and despite the overwhelming opposition of most people and governments in the 
world, the United States seems determined to carry out military and 
diplomatic action that is almost unprecedented in the history of civilized 
nations. The first stage of our widely publicized war plan is to launch 3,000 
bombs and missiles on a relatively defenseless Iraqi population within the 
first few hours of an invasion, with the purpose of so damaging and 
demoralizing the people that they will change their obnoxious leader, who 
will most likely be hidden and safe during the bombardment.

     o The war's weapons must discriminate between combatants and 
noncombatants. Extensive aerial bombardment, even with precise accuracy, 
inevitably results in "collateral damage." Gen. Tommy R. Franks, commander of 
American forces in the Persian Gulf, has expressed concern about many of the 
military targets being near hospitals, schools, mosques and private homes.

     o Its violence must be proportional to the injury we have suffered. 
Despite Saddam Hussein's other serious crimes, American efforts to tie Iraq 
to the 9/11 terrorist attacks have been unconvincing.

     o The attackers must have legitimate authority sanctioned by the society 
they profess to represent. The unanimous vote of approval in the Security 
Council to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction can still be honored, 
but our announced goals are now to achieve regime change and to establish a 
Pax Americana in the region, perhaps occupying the ethnically divided country 
for as long as a decade. For these objectives, we do not have international 
authority. Other members of the Security Council have so far resisted the 
enormous economic and political influence that is being exerted from 
Washington, and we are faced with the possibility of either a failure to get 
the necessary votes or else a veto from Russia, France and China. Although 
Turkey may still be enticed into helping us by enormous financial rewards and 
partial future control of the Kurds and oil in northern Iraq, its democratic 
Parliament has at least added its voice to the worldwide expressions of 
concern.

     o The peace it establishes must be a clear improvement over what exists. 
Although there are visions of peace and democracy in Iraq, it is quite 
possible that the aftermath of a military invasion will destabilize the 
region and prompt terrorists to further jeopardize our security at home. 
Also, by defying overwhelming world opposition, the United States will 
undermine the United Nations as a viable institution for world peace.

What about America's world standing if we don't go to war after such a great 
deployment of military forces in the region? The heartfelt sympathy and 
friendship offered to America after the 9/11 attacks, even from formerly 
antagonistic regimes, has been largely dissipated; increasingly unilateral 
and domineering policies have brought international trust in our country to 
its lowest level in memory. American stature will surely decline further if 
we launch a war in clear defiance of the United Nations. But to use the 
presence and threat of our military power to force Iraq's compliance with all 
United Nations resolutions -- with war as a final option -- will enhance our 
status as a champion of peace and justice.

========================================

Wirt Atmar

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *