Why I Rarely Support a “First Strike”

Only hours into the war in Iran, controversy is already spreading over the US targeting military and political sites. I have no intention of taking sides politically in this article, nor am I aiming to definitively argue for or against the current US involvement in Iran.

I realize this article might provoke controversy. Still, I want to explore the ethical dilemmas of armed conflict and explain why the concept of a “first strike” has been a contentious issue among Just War theorists for centuries.

I hope this article will prompt you to think deeply about the justification for any armed conflict. Our military is currently in danger right now. I challenge you to always pray for the brave men and women in uniform and for the families that stand beside them... even during times of peace. However, right now it is especially important to keep those brave warriors in our prayers.

I also believe it's important to remind you that the United States military is controlled by civilians. Our Constitution guarantees that civilian political leadership will always have authority over the military. I see this safeguard as healthy and beneficial for our nation. However, I recognize that it also introduces inherent challenges when making decisions about military use during times of war.

This is not a matter that can be outsourced. I believe the American public has a right to sufficient information about why we deploy soldiers into danger to justify any military intervention. If you think that this use of force is unjustified before God, you have a moral duty to change the country's leadership in the next elections. Conversely, if you believe that this war is justified in God's eyes, we both owe it to our faith and our country to fully support this military action. Essentially, first-strike military decisions should be an all-or-nothing choice for our leaders.

Great minds over the centuries have spent enormous time and energy defining what they believe to be a “Just War.” This principle has guided societies for many centuries. While most Western societies agree on the basic premise of just war principles, there is considerable controversy about whether a nation could ever be justified in using first-strike capabilities.

After years of dedicated study and reflection on the moral justification for initiating first strikes in war, I am reminded of the profound importance of moral clarity and courage. While I won't delve into my lengthy thoughts here, I believe the title of this article encapsulates my journey and convictions on this pivotal subject.
 
Essentially, the brightest minds have settled on two main viewpoints regarding the moral justification for a first strike. Over the centuries, many theorists have argued that there are never circumstances under which a country can justify initiating a first attack. Based on this, these scholars would contend that U.S. involvement in Iran cannot be morally justified and is therefore wrong in God's eyes.

Some argue a first strike in a just war is only justified in extreme cases, primarily to prevent a prolonged, damaging conflict by disabling the enemy and only when an imminent threat exists.

The debate centers on whether U.S. strikes against Iran can be morally justified and divinely approved, which is only possible if there is an immediate, clear threat. Since no country has ever definitively declared an attack, verifying an imminent threat is nearly impossible.

The population has a divine duty to hold their leaders accountable. No action has greater consequences than involving the military in war. Despite advancements in technology, war inevitably causes death and destruction. Just days into the bombing campaign in Iran, casualties are rising both locally and globally.

I caution military leaders against falsely portraying campaigns as without casualties. Unfortunately, deaths are inevitable in every conflict, often innocent civilians caught in the violence. Leaders must fully grasp the violence and destruction involved before resorting to military force, ensuring politicians are aware of the true consequences of war.

Over the past decades of military conflict, one thing we've learned is that despite advancements in technology and capabilities, there is no such thing as a small or quick fight. Ultimately, every war tends to become prolonged and drawn out. It might not always involve constant death and destruction—such as during the years between Operations Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom—but the war will consistently prove more difficult than planned, bloodier than desired, and longer than expected.

Since conflicts are never brief, leaders must consider the potential consequences of their initial strike on their country. Because fights tend to become more violent than anticipated, they must recognize that no conflict is truly sterile. Consequently, the justification for a first strike is only valid in the rarest and most extreme circumstances.

My personal stance on the use of first strike within just war theory is rooted in morality and spirituality. I leave room for such rare and extreme cases, trusting that ethical judgment is crucial. However, when a nation’s leaders misjudge these ethics, they risk not only fighting foreign enemies but also pitting themselves against divine standards for a just war, with potentially catastrophic spiritual consequences.