One tool for that would be to test it under the criteria of classical just war theory. These criteria were developed by early Christian fathers to guide the governments of medieval Christendom. Unfortunately, this way of measuring the morality of military endeavors is now largely disregarded. Given the current debate about Iraq, it would be wise for Christians to relearn the principles of just war and apply them to the situation in Iraq.

St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas are our main sources for understanding classical just war theory. There are three main components to this theory, all of which must be met for any war to be just. First, a war must be conducted by an agent that has the authority to declare war. It is not right for private individuals or lower authorities to wage war since they can legitimately appeal to a higher authority. Secondly, there must be a just cause. As you might expect self defense is a just cause, but it is not the only one. Augustine and Aquinas both seem to argue that a war fought to end a moral wrong being perpetrated by a nation or its citizens is also just. Aquinas makes the broad statement under this second principle, that "a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault". Finally, the motive for going to war must be just. In other words, no matter what the cause - even if attacking the most evil of regimes - there can be no motives ulterior to attacking that evil. If these three principles are met, then a war is legitimate.

The first principle is fairly straightforward, since the legitimate authority for declaring war is fairly clear in United States politics. Aside from a possible Constitutional debate on presidential authority in attacking a country, it is fairly clear that the United States Federal Government is the legitimate authority for declaring war. While some may want to appeal to the United Nations, the UN has little to no authority in itself. The UN is a confederation of governments, not an authority over those governments.

The next requirement for a just war is that the war must either be for self-defense or the war must address some evil done by a ruler or the people of another country. While one could possibly argue that Iraq's connections to terrorism justify the attack on grounds of self-defense, because Saddam Hussein made no attack on the United States, I think we must look at whether or not the Iraq war addresses evil done by Saddam Hussein. This point is obvious. I don't need to run down the cases of tyranny, blatant disrespect for any law, and mass genocide to prove this point.

However, I am implying here that a nation is just in attacking any people or government that is evil, and I must pause to defend this claim. Augustine and Aquinas both seem to assume this point, but I think a solid argument can be made from Scripture to support this position. Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Joshua clearly say that God used Israel to punish those who did evil in the sight of the Lord. Of course, it might be argued that Israel was a theocracy under the direct command of God, and thus is irrelevant to today. While this is an important difference, Paul's discourse on the purpose of government in Romans 13, and Peter's correlative remarks in 1 Peter 2, back up this same position. Paul writes, "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil….For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil." This passage seems to imply several things. To begin, the primary purpose for government on earth is to be a terror to those who do evil. While it might be pointed out that this passage is talking about punishing individuals, not other nations, I do not see how this nullifies the essential point. If we accept the assumption of classical just war theory that a war must be waged by a legitimate authority, it seems to me that other governments are the only appropriate authority to fill that role.

Immediately some will cry that this abolishes all consideration for national sovereignty! However, can national sovereignty truly be defended as an ultimate standard for conduct or for justice? National sovereignty only defines the extent of governmental authority, or the physical boundaries in which a nation's laws apply. Thus, for the sake of order and good government boundaries must exist which define the limits to the authority of a law. However, defining the jurisdictional limits of laws such as the tax rate, voting rights, or property protection is very different from saying that there can be no accountability or intervention between governments in matters of right and wrong. The definition of national sovereignty clearly does not give any government the right to do evil inside or outside its realm. In the end, I believe governments can, and should, be a check on evil regimes. There is no question that this would include Hussein's government in Iraq.

While many may be ready to dismiss my argument at this point, there are two important things that limit the cases where governments can justly wage war that are essential to balance the above argument. First, while not set out as a separate condition for just war by Aquinas or Augustine, it is commonly recognized and assumed under classical just war theory that war is only a last resort. Thus, war is not the immediate response, but rather the result of failed attempts to address the issue through other means.

Second, the final condition necessary for a just war deals with the motives for going to war and both clarifies and naturally limits the implications of the second condition. A nation may not attack another nation, even with a legitimate cause, if its motives are not just. The fact is that if we reject utilitarian ends for war, the cases for conflict are dramatically reduced. This can be a hard principle to apply since it deals with intent and motives, and since it demands that we live according to a transcendent moral standard. But it is, nonetheless, necessary for a just war.

Looking to Iraq, there are plenty of people who will argue that Bush had ulterior motives for taking out Saddam. However, looking at the facts (which to do so completely is outside the scope of this discussion), each objection seems to fall in light of what Bush has actually said and done. Bush's arguments have consistently been that Saddam's regime had to be toppled in order to eliminate a threat to America and to liberate a people who were suffering under an evil regime. In other words, Bush's motives are self-defense and attacking an evil regime. Augustine's conclusion about the motives for going to war were, "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good". This seems to describe Bush's motives exactly. He was seeking peace by overthrowing a threat to America, punishing an evil-doer in Saddam, and uplifting the good of liberating the Iraqi people from cruel tyranny. If this is correct, then the war in Iraq satisfies all three conditions of classical just war theory.

Before concluding, there is at least one other significant objection that I should address. What of the prison interrogations at Abu Gharib? How can a nation wage a just war if it violates the same moral standard it appeals to in overthrowing a regime? The actions themselves do not undermine the Iraq war unless they were specifically permitted by the same legitimate authority that declared war. This is not to overlook something that was clearly wrong. But it is to say that unless the authority that declared the war is the one that violates the standard, the justice of the war is not undermined.

But how do these principles apply to the 21st century, and how can we use a "classical" just war theory to guide our actions today? Countless pages have been filled with discussion on new criteria of justice and on how we can determine when a war is just in an age of new technology and global terrorism. I believe, however, that this search for just war principles that apply to the 21st century is not driven by any failure in classical just war theory, but rather by an abandonment of the moral standard on which that theory stands. It is true that technology raises questions of justice that the authors of classical just war theory did not have to deal with and that terrorism presents a new face to war in that the fight is not necessarily against a defined state or regime. However, these questions do not demand a new formula for just war. There is not any initial reason that the same principles of classical just war theory cannot be applied to the 21st century. It is only because Augustine and Aquinas based their theory of just war upon biblical standards of morality which our society no longer recognizes that so many consider classical just war theory to be outdated. When we rest our case for just war upon these same biblical standards of morality, these principles of just war can apply just as well to the 21st century as they did to the 13th century.

Examining the Iraq war from this perspective, I believe the United States has acted appropriately in overthrowing a regime that was evil, even if it did not pose an immediate threat to the United States. This analysis relies on the legitimacy of classical just war theory as the guide to our decisions in going to war, which in turn finds its strength and its applicability in the objective moral authority found in Scripture.