This attack on Iraq is morally wrong - and I was involved in the last one

I write this as an Australian citizen concerned at the threats to world peace and the need for us to courageously confront evil, even using lethal force, but in circumstances that are morally justified.

I believe Saddam Hussein must be confronted, but I am concerned that a unilateral pre-emptive assault on Iraq without UN mandate has not yet been justified and may result in dire consequences.

For the past 33 years I have served in the Australian Army, firstly as an infantry officer, and for the past seven years as a chaplain. As an infantry lieutenant colonel, I commanded an Australian Army peacekeeping contingent on the Iran-Iraq border in 1989-90. I have dealt with senior Iraqi and Iranian officers, and seen first-hand the catastrophic outcome of more than eight years of combat that cost more than one million lives. I have seen, felt, even "smelt" the evil emanating from the regime of Saddam Hussein.

Upon my return to Australia I was employed as the land operations officer in the Defence Command Centre in Canberra, and was Watch Commander when in January 1991 we sent a "flash" message to our troops in the Gulf authorising them to use lethal force to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's forces. I wholeheartedly supported that action, and today I consider the war on the terrorist activity of the al Qa'ida network just as necessary and morally justifiable.

But as the spectre of a new war against Iraq looms closer each day, I have grave reservations about involvement by us, on military, strategic and ethical grounds.

As a Christian soldier deployed to five conflicts I have taken great solace in adhering to the long-established 'just war' doctrine which has informed ethical action in conflict situations since the time of St Augustine.

It is not just practical wisdom; I consider it to be divine wisdom. It obliges all citizens and governments to work toward peace and the avoidance of war, but acknowledges the right of legitimate defence by military force in circumstances where, at one and the same time:

• The damage inflicted by the aggressor is lasting, grave and certain.
• All other means of resolution have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.
• There must be serious prospects of success.
• The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.
  (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994, para 2309)

This doctrine has been tried and tested over hundreds of years and remains just as valid today. Troops sent to restore peace in a conflict vitally need to know that they have both moral legitimacy, and parameters on their use of lethal force.

Readers might be interested to know that the Australian Army, in its most recent rewrite of our keystone doctrinal document, The Fundamentals of Land Warfare (2002) specifically endorses the criticality of adhering to the 'just war' precepts for the long-term restoration of peace to be achieved.

I hope our military leaders will not be asked to turn a blind eye to this doctrine and commit our soldiers to an unjust involvement which may haunt them for years to come, simply in order to satisfy the urgent demands for action of our US allies.

From my first-hand experience, the politics and culture of the Middle East are complex issues that most Westerners would have great difficulty understanding. No simple or quick-fix solutions can be expected to work there.

Hastily devised, externally imposed, and short-sighted Western solutions have led from one problem to another in the Middle East throughout the last century. Both Saddam and Osama bin Laden received substantial support from the US in earlier ill-conceived strategies.

People in the Middle East continue to be outraged at the meddling by Western governments in regional affairs when it suits their own interests (like the economics of oil), and their indifference and intransigence in matters of justice (like the restoration of a Palestinian homeland).

Serious attention to demands for Israeli compliance with UN resolutions unfulfilled by them, which could restore justice to the Palestinian people, would draw the sting out of the tail of Islamic extremism.

The US has weapons of 'massive' destruction that will be able to bomb Iraq back into the dark ages but real peace requires more than military might. Peace will be achieved only when the root problems of justice in economic, social and political terms are addressed.

It is morally scandalous that inestimable billions of dollars will be found to fund this conflict and its aftermath, when these could have been more fruitfully directed to health and human development in the poorest countries of the world where the seeds of discontent are sown.

Strategically, we need more thinking and action directed toward the ways in which we can provide justice to peoples, and nurture and sustain long-term peace, rather than the prevailing short-sightedness of seeking military solutions, which have little prospect of lasting very long.

It is my great fear that unilateral action against Iraq by the US and allies like Australia will greatly swell the ranks of Islamic fundamentalists and unleash forces of evil that it would be extremely difficult to contain. What is needed in the Middle East is justice, legitimacy and integrity. The majority of Islamic people expect these just as much as we do. These are the non-negotiable prerequisites for peace.

The legitimacy of the so-called "war on terrorism", which so far has involved the pursuit of the al Qa'ida network, is to my mind based on a just response to acts of terror perpetrated by an aggressor who seeks to engage us in indiscriminate conflict. A war on Iraq is not in this same category, and can be only tenuously linked to the war on terrorism.

Many media reporters are saying that war is now inevitable. This may be so in the mind of the US administration, but it doesn't need to be. Despite the morally reprehensible conduct of the regime of Saddam Hussein, no ethical justification has yet been established for engaging in a pre-emptive war against the people of Iraq. None of the just war criteria have yet been satisfied. No Iraqi, US, British or Australian soldier should have to shed their blood over the oil fields of Iraq until they are. Continued containment of Saddam or his surgical removal - short of invasion - remain valid options.

If a 'just' case should emerge for conflict to be initiated by us, please God it would employ only a 'just' and discriminate use of force.

I hope the Australian people, and Christians particularly, will have the courage and wisdom to continue to speak their minds to their politicians on this issue, and not just assume we must follow the US line and timetable. World peace is at stake here. Our integrity as a nation is at stake.

History will judge us by our actions and inactions, but more significantly God too will judge us.

We may well ask whether God would want us to be bombing Baghdad in a few weeks' time, or pursuing other means instead to achieve peace. I suspect his answer might echo of the words of Micah, that we should 'do [only] what is just, and show mercy' (Micah 6:8).

© Catholic Leader