Os textos examinam o caso concreto da Invasão do Iraque, a elabora uma defesa contra a crítica de um certo livro NEO-CONNED, que, supostamente escrito por paleconservadores, defende a tese de que a guerra no Iraque não satisfaz às condições prescritas na Tradição Católica para a guerra justa. O sr Edward Feser passa então a examianr, e é isso que é útil em nosso contexto, quais efetivamente são as condições clássicas da doutrina de Guerra Justa cristã, e destaca a literatura canônica pré-Concilio Vaticano II.
Claramente se contraria neles a idéia de um conceito de guerra justa baseado meramente em “guerra defensiva”:
" In an article on National Review Online last year, philosopher David Oderberg noted that despite the tendency of contemporary churchmen to speak as if war is never justifiable except in self-defense, Catholic manuals of ethics and moral theology prior to Vatican II commonly taught that a response to immediate attack was only one of several possible legitimate justifications for going to war.
" Official teaching such as the Catechism of 1992/1997 allows the possibility of war justified by the right of self-defence or perhaps the defence of another country. But the traditional view has always been broader than this: Actual physical aggression or the threat thereof is one potential jus ad bellum (ground for war), but so, according to the standard moral theology manuals of the 1950s, are freedom from tyranny and liberation from religious oppression whereby a nation is prevented from worshipping God. Even a grave dishonor to a country can be a good reason for going to war. And the standard pre-1960s theology books also teach that it might be an act of charity for a nation to go to war to bring orderly government to a country in chaos.
These textbooks are merely echoing the centuries-old teaching of the Catholic Church as embodied in its greatest minds, such as St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. To be sure, the textbooks agree that war is a horrendous thing, only to be justified in serious circumstances. But they are at some remove from John Paul, who never seems to have met a war he didn’t abhor."
Observando que o trecho "... freedom from tyranny and liberation from religious oppression whereby a nation is prevented from worshipping God está evidentemente associado com a questão da Arábia Saudita colocada anteriormente.
"For example, Fagothey’s Right and Reason (2nd ed.) tells us that “offensive war is just when fought to vindicate seriously violated rights" (p. 577). Jone’s Moral Theology says that “both offensive and defensive war are lawful for a just cause" (p. 142) and McHugh and Callan’s Moral Theology (Rev. ed.) agrees: “Just war is either offensive or defensive" (vol. I, p. 557). "