Presidential Candidates: the Unasked Just War Questions

Prolife supporters are actively debating whether or not they should support any of the presidential candidates based on their positions on abortion. They, and other Christian leaders are overlooking the question about the justice of a pre-emptive attack on Iran.

Every major Democratic candidate - Obama, Edwards, & Clinton – has implicitly endorsed a preemptive attack on Iran in order to prevent the development of nuclear weapons. Neither Huckabee, McCain, Thompson or Giuliani thought it necessary to obtain congressional permission prior to an attack. To his credit, Romney advocated a preliminary discussion with his attorneys in order to ascertain his authority. Ron Paul simply advocated following the Constitution.

Christians have reconciled Deut 5:17 “You shall not kill” with the necessity for defense by means of the
Just War theory.For purposes of review, the just war criteria that govern the decision to go to war are:

Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may use deadly force or wage war
Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted.

Even if we give the candidates credit for the criteria of right intention (just cause), reasoning that preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons is a sufficient cause, the other criteria still must be met. In order to meet the criteria of legitimate authority, a President must have a pre-authorization from Congress. (President Bush already has sufficient legal authorization.) It is possible, I suppose, to reconcile the criteria of last resort with mounting a preemptive attack. It would be a tricky argument and would have to assume adequate intelligence – something notably lacking in recent years.

My guess is that none of the candidates would be able to reconcile the notion of a preemptive attack with these two criteria. The most likely response would be total confusion.

Prolife advocates and Christian leaders should be asking this question now. They can demand answers while there may still be time. On the other hand, George Will contends that overturning Roe v. Wade will make little difference.