Article from the Wheaton Record
March 21, 2003
Vol. 128, No. 21

Reprinted with permission

CACE debate focuses on preemptive war
Morality of war discussed as missiles begin to fall on Baghdad

By David DeGroot
Guest writer

A debate dealing with the ethics of a preemptive war took place on Wednesday between Drs. Keith Pavlischek and Michael Cartwright. While the debate was intended to deal with preemptive war in general, the speakers continually referred to the current conflict between the U.S. and Iraq.

Dr. Cartwright, a Philosophy and Religion at the University of Indianapolis, debated against a preemptive strike. As Christians we are called to be ambassadors of Christ, Cartwright explained. He raised concerns of the current war and its overtones of crusade. He also argued that sometimes Christians can be distracted by the power of evil and revengeful behavior. Where Christians are called to be witnesses of goodness, not of violence and aggression, a "Dirty Harry" ethic is being purveyed in America, something of which Christians need to be aware. This ethic is tied to the power of evil which can come through movies and other secular channels. American Catholic clergy has pointed out that war is unjust where there is no imminent threat. The U.S. should have the backing of the world if it attacks, and the benefits of U.S. victory may not be as great as some hope.

A Marine Colonel and director of Civitas, a religious think tank, Dr. Pavlischek used his military background to explain why a preemptive strike would be justified. He began by quoting verbatim from the U.S. National Security Strategy which states that the U.S. will take preemptive action against any rogue nation perceived to be a threat. This shift in policy is due to changes in interpretation of the Just War Theory, taking place in the last decade due largely to the huge destructiveness of weapons of mass destruction deeming a reactionary military policy untenable. Pavlischek explained that this policy fell in line with Christian values and the Just War Theory. Given the imminent threat from a non-legitimate authority that is terrorism, the U.S. is justified in military action.

The question and answer period saw the two debate the significance of the Muslim perception of the U.S., the notion of the war in Iraq as a crusade, and the idea that participating in war is sinful. Cartwright stated that the Christian church should not blindly trust Bush just because he is a Christian, and argued that there are alternatives to military action, such as peaceful demonstrations. He also questioned likelihood of a successful war in Iraq. Pavlischek, for his part, raised the question as to what imminent threat looked like on September 10, 2001, arguing that preemption goes further in promoting peace in the long run.

The debate was widely attended and lasted 90 minutes. At the end of the debate, the audience was informed that military attacks had already hit Baghdad and President Bush was about to address the nation. The President's speech made it clear that war is now a reality, announcing official military action against Iraq because Saddam Hussein and his sons refused to leave Iraq and allow disarmament.