The case for Pacifism

The war in Iraq has proved, if proof was needed, that Christian states following their consciences can take very misguided decisions to go to war. After all, the authority was legitimate (even if UN sanction was arguably not granted); the end, of deposing a cruel and murderous tyrant was justifiable, and the intention, of stabilizing the region, seemed honourable. What was less clear (despite mouthings about “weapons of mass destruction”) was whether Saddam Hussein presented a real threat to anyone (except perhaps Israel). As with any consequentialist approach a calculation was made at the time which, with hindsight, proved to be alarmingly wrong, for how do we gauge the likely outcome of war when there are so many variables (including the law of unintended consequences)?

Moreover, it seems that the allied forces have been unable to observe jus in bello (the conditions for the right conduct of war). Thinkers such as Cicero would have been appalled at the scale of civilian casualties, both those caused by smart bombs that did stupid things (such as land on hospitals), and those caused by fighting on the ground (where insurgent and civilian may be indistinguishable). It seems that America particularly has abandoned any pretence to a moral approach to war:

1. By holding prisoners without trial in cages in Guantanamo Bay, outside the jurisdiction of its own Supreme Court and without any clear definition of their role as combatants.
2. By proven mistreatment of prisoners at the Al-Ghraib prison (so far resulting in just one prosecution of a US female soldier).
3. By extensive arrest and detention of civilians in Iraq without trial (an approach which failed miserably in Northern Ireland in the 1970s).

Thus we are forced back to consider the case for pacifism.