Is the Iraq War 'Just'? Can Any War Be 'Just'?

Below are excerpts from "On Faith," an Internet feature sponsored by The Washington Post and Newsweek. Each week, more than 50 figures from the world of faith engage in a conversation about some aspect of religion.

This week, panel members were asked: "Do you believe there is such a thing as a 'just war'? Is the Iraq war 'just'?"

No "Right Authority"

I believe that the intent of the administration was moral and that it expected to succeed rapidly and with a minimum of casualties. Saddam Hussein's government certainly posed a threat to its own population, and there were reasons to believe it might still possess some chemical or biological weapons.

The United States did not, however, have the "right authority" to go to war, given the lack of support from the U.N. Security Council, divisions within NATO and the Bush administration's unwillingness to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to complete their work.

America always has the right to go to war in self-defense, but Iraq's government did not pose an imminent threat to the security of the United States.

-- Madeleine Albright, secretary of state under President Bill Clinton

Debate Ongoing

Not all oppressors can, or should, be ousted through war. But the fact that not all can be ousted does not mean that some can't, especially when American security and other overwhelming interests are paramount. It is still being debated whether American security and national interests justified U.S. intervention in Iraq.

Also included in the definition of a "just war" would be the right to self-defense. The debate is ongoing as to whether the Bush administration's policy of preemptive war fits this definition. I believe it does in the case of terrorism.

-- Cal Thomas, syndicated columnist

To see more "On Faith" online commentary, hosted by Jon Mecham and Sally Quinn, go tohttp://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith.