Paragraph 2309 of the Catholic Catechism is known as the “Just War Theory” and has been widely accepted as the measure of whether a war is morally acceptable. It was conceived in Medieval Europe by St. Thomas Aquinas and has been used as a litmus test this century to decide if a war is justifiable. For example, World War II largely met the requirements, while Vietnam did not. The theory states that four conditions must be met “at one and the same time: the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; all other means of putting an end to it must 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.” These four principles must be taken into account before the United States strikes at Iraq.

In response to the first point, Iraq is certainly a destabilizing force in the Middle East, but is by no means the only or worst one. If Iraq were to launch the chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons the Bush administration claims it has, that would certainly be lasting and grave damage. But this argument is tripped up by the word “certain.” As Scott Ridder, the now-famous former weapons inspector in Iraq, has pointed out, it is highly unlikely that Iraq has been able to rearm itself with weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, it is rather certain that Saddam Hussein is attempting to procure weapons of mass destruction, so if this were the only issue of contention, war still might be justified. However, three more points remain.

The second point requires the US to exhaust every possible non-violent means of preventing the conflict. Certainly the embargo has not worked. Although it is estimated that weapons inspectors destroyed far more weapons than were used in the attacks of the Gulf War, they were prevented from finishing their jobs. Nevertheless, there is still one more step before a war in Iraq can be viewed as our only effective course of action: send the weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Saddam’s government has announced that it will permit weapons inspectors to return, and whether this is merely a stalling tactic or a true softening of Iraqi policy, the world must take him up on the offer. If inspectors are given truly unfettered access to all sites, they will do one of two things: decide that Iraq has no means to make weapons or that Iraq has weapons or manufacturing facilities that they refuse to destroy, which would justify war. If they are not allowed true unfettered access, then the world will have exhausted all other options except war, so war will be permissible.

The third point, that the war must be winnable, is likely to be overlooked by most Americans: What chance does a small country like Iraq have against the world’s superpower, the United States? But look again: This year, the Pentagon ran a war-game called the “Millennium Challenge 2002,” which simulated an American preemptive strike against a Persian Gulf nation (in this case Iran). While the U.S. won out in end, the game was rigged. For example, the American team resurrected a major battle fleet after the opposing general (played by Paul Van Riper, regarded by the Pentagon as one of the best war-game opposing generals) sunk it. Rules also prevented the enemy from using chemical weapons (which Iraq is supposed to have), and only allowed it to only attack paratroopers after they had landed. Obviously, the scenario was unrealistic. The United States would almost certainly win a war against Iraq, but it should be on guard against the overconfidence it had prior to Vietnam.

Perhaps the most important clause is the fourth: “the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.” Saddam is a truly evil man who has gassed and tortured his own people. Yet, attacking Saddam, especially without broad international support, could be a destabilizing action, not just for the Middle East, but for the whole world. As Milton Viorst pointed out in his New York Times article “The Wisdom of Imagining The Worst-Case Scenario,” Saddam might do anything to stay in power. He could attack Israel with SCUD missiles, just as he did in the first Gulf War, this time filling them with VX or Sarin nerve gas. Israel, as it stated Sunday, would retaliate, perhaps even with nuclear weapons. This could destabilize Pakistan, a country with a secular but unstable government that has been helping the U.S. find al Qaeda terrorists. It also has a large extremist Islamic population that could use this Israeli attack to overthrow President Pervez Musharraf by calling him an ally of Israel by way of the United States. Pakistan, a nuclear power, would then be under the control of a radical Islamic government. Because Pakistani missiles do not yet have the range to attack Israel, it might attack its enemy to the east, India, igniting nuclear war in the subcontinent that would eventually involve China, followed by the rest of the world. Hundreds of millions of billions could die. This is, admittedly, an extreme worst case scenario, but even a long, drawn out war with a leader unafraid to use chemical weapons could cost millions of lives. Saddam is truly evil, but he does not presently have the means to cause the massive death tolls that a war in Iraq could bring.

Bush’s war on Iraq fails on all four requirements of the “Just War Theory.” Unless Bush proves that Saddam not only has weapons of mass destruction but plans to use them, there is no way that he can justify a war against Iraq.