In 1973, Dr. Karl Menninger, probably Americas foremost psychiatrist then or since, wrote ‘Whatever Became of Sin?” In it, he made a strong case for a return to the concept of sin as an antidote for much of what ailed our society. I believe his point is even more relevant today.

Among other heinous sins of our society, he named war. He believed that war should never be considered as a means of solving problems. I agree with him.

But we are on the brink of what appears to be an inevitable war and I believe that we must ask ourselves some hard questions about it. Most Americans still believe in the principles of right and wrong. It seems to me that there are many questions about this war that we must examine. If we care at all about issues of right and wrong, or responsibility vs. reckless selfishness, then we must think again about the concept of a just war. I am not able to discuss the long history of that interesting idea. However, I do believe that, short of defensive retaliation for an actual invasion (by troops and not a few individuals) on one’s territory, there is no just war. If we conduct an unjust war, then we are in the wrong. In the view of any of the major religions or ethical systems, that aggressive behavior will come back to haunt us.

Well, why are we going to war? What is the rationale? The reasons I have heard put forward are as follows:

1. The enemy has weapons of mass destruction. They are a direct threat to us, our population and our way of life.

2. The enemy is inhumane and kills and tortures his own people. His people would like a change of regime.

3. If the enemy were to strike us first it would ruin our economy.

4. We must protect the interests of our ally, Israel.

5. We need to protect the production and flow of oil in the Middle East to the U.S.

6. Saddam Hussein promotes terrorism and since terrorists have invaded our soil, we are in the right to invade and unseat him.

Let us consider each of the reasons in turn to see if it justifies our declaration of war.

1.  The enemy has weapons of mass destruction that are a direct threat to us. It may be that the enemy has these weapons. How regrettable, even awful that people with few or no moral compunctions would be in control of such possible devastation. On the other hand, it is now ten years after the first Gulf War. If our “enemy” has these weapons, (so far there has been no evidence put forward) he has shown no inclination to use them against us. He has made no threat of war, as have we. Let it be noted that he would not have had any of these horrible capabilities without substantial contributions in this area from various Western companies. Without any direct aggression against us, and merely because of our anxieties about the possible intentions or capabilities of our enemy, going to war is wrong.

2.  The enemy is inhumane and kills and tortures his own people who would like a change of regime. That may be true. It certainly makes sense that if a tyrant is mistreating and even murdering his own people, that is wrong and he should be removed. The question in my mind is, removed by whom--by us? We know that no one rules without the consent of the governed. Left to their own devices, the energy of the people of Iraq will increase. They will increasingly understand the problem over time and find a way to resolve it as have peoples throughout all of time. 

When outside countries interfere, however, especially very strong ones, those directly concerned lose energy and focus. Then nothing happens. Just because the U.S. is now the only “superpower,” does it give us the right to decide how things are going to be for all the countries of the world? Does it give us the right to even discuss assassination of the rulers of other countries? During a war perpetrated by the U.S. would fewer numbers of innocents be annihilated? No, far more people will be killed in a war of ours than by any tyrant and their blood will be upon our hands. It is not ours to decide how any nation except our own is to be governed. It is not up to us to judge the ruler of another country. If they do not want him they will get rid of him, perhaps with our support and only if we are asked. Making war because we judge a ruler evil is wrong.

3.  If the enemy were to strike us first it would ruin our economy. That is a very big if. If, in ten years, the enemy has not attacked, why do we use a hypothetical strike as a reason for a preemptive strike ourselves? Further, this “if” to my way of thinking, is not a justification for invasion and occupation of another country. Economy balanced against human lives (tens or hundreds of thousands of them) is no contest. And what would a war do to our economy? Possible economic consequences as a reason for war is wrong.

4.  We must protect the interests of our ally, Israel. Israel is not being invaded. We are not being invaded. Israel may very much want us to go to war with Iraq. Some people suggest that Israel is behind the scenes, egging us on. One can see how that might be possible. However, Israel is perfectly capable of fighting her own battles as she has demonstrated over and over. Israel as a reason for America going to war is wrong.

5.  We must protect the production and flow of oil in the Middle East.  Again, one can see how the biggest, strongest nation in the world might reason that it has a right to whatever it wants. Why not just declare a war so that we can go in and occupy any country that has resources that we might want? This view is supported by the idea that, since those resources are in an unstable region, we need to find a reason to go in and stabilize things. I don’t think so. If we believe war is justified because of a resource we need being in an unstable area, we are out of line from the point of view of any moral or ethical considerations I have ever heard of. If this is the reason the U.S. gives to justify this war, it is in the wrong. Oil as a reason for war is wrong.

7.  Saddam Hussein promotes and supports terrorists, our enemies. This is perhaps the strongest argument of all. However, terrorism is supported from many centers all over the world and by many nation states. Those who perpetrated and abetted the attacks on America on 9-11should be found and dealt with in courts of justice, no matter how many of them there are out there. If there is direct evidence against Hussein, he should be charged and brought to justice in an American court. Wouldn’t that be more reasonable and what is expected from the strongest nation in the world than war? Wouldn’t it actually make our country more secure to shore up our own borders and take other obvious security measures that are still being neglected? How does war solve anything? And where does the war stop? How does it get won? Isn’t war stooping to their level? War because of the possible sympathies and intentions of the enemy is wrong.

Osama bin Laden actually planned an attack on Hussein when he invaded Kuwait, but the King of Saudi deterred him. Had Osama been allowed to go forward, our two enemies would have been at war against themselves, leaving us out of a very costly and terrible war. Perhaps, as usually happens to evil empires, the whole terrorist network would have imploded upon itself. Perhaps 9-11 would have never happened.

I love my country. I pray for its President every day. But I fear that America is out of control. The ethics being used to justify the U.S. starting this war are, apparently, “might makes right.” Is this what America has come to? If so, I believe we have great reason to fear for our future. In that case, we ourselves become the evil empire and the ones to sooner or later implode upon ourselves.

If we inflict death and destruction on thousands of innocent others, for any or all of the above reasons, I believe that every major religious or ethical tradition in the world would hold that this will come back upon us.

Falls Church, Virginia
January 11, 2003

© 2003 Roberta M. Gilbert, M.D.

Dr. Roberta Gilbert is a psychiatrist whose practice is in Falls Church, Virginia. She is Director of the Center for the Study of Human Systems, a professor at the John Leland Center for Theological Studies and a faculty member of the Georgetown Family Center. She is the author of two books, "Extraordinary Relationships: A New Way of Thinking About Human Interaction" and "Connecting With Our Children Guiding Principles for Parents in a Troubled World," both widely acclaimed.

Dr. Gilbert is the wife of Joseph D. Douglass, PhD, an editorial contributor to Financial Sense Online.