President Bush proclaimed in his State of the Union Address last month that the United States of America will "defend the peace and confound the designs of evil men," referring to disarming Saddam Hussein. He assured the American public that if it comes to war, "We will fight in a just cause and by just means." Bush ended the speech by asking for God's guidance. (He repeated that theme Thursday at the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, seeking guidance through "a testing time for our country.")

Because the president appeared to be referencing "just war" criteria that have been articulated by the Christian Church for almost 2,000 years, it is important to look closely at whether they will be met in a war against Iraq.

Just cause: First of all, is there just cause? Traditionally this has referred to a defensive response to grave and certain harm to the nation. The Bush administration has not made the case that either Iraq's capacity or intention to use weapons of mass destruction is likely, much less certain. There is no more adequate evidence of an imminent attack of a grave nature now than there was five years ago. There are no proven high-level Iraqi links to al Qaeda and international terrorism targeting the United States.

Last resort: Second, are we at the point where going to war is truly a matter of last resort? Clearly not. We have containment and deterrence of a regime that has been effective for 12 years. Political and military sanctions can be continued -- although I would hope we'd lift the economic embargo that has been partially responsible for a doubling of the death rate for small children in Iraq since 1991, according to UNICEF. Iraq is militarily surrounded and contained. There are U.S.-patrolled no-fly zones. Surveillance and intelligence-gathering is at a high pitch. U.N. weapon inspectors are operating throughout the country. If we can continue negotiating with a more dangerous North Korea, why not with Iraq?

Legitimate authority: Third, does President Bush have legitimate authority to act? The majority of Americans are against the war without the backing of the United Nations, and Vietnam should have taught us not to prosecute a war without the backing of the American people. The President claims that last November's U.N. resolution gives him all the authority needed for a war against Iraq, but that is not the way a majority of the Security Council now see it. To prosecute a war without U.N. support and without the backing of the American public would be folly at best and a disaster at worse.

Probability of success: Fourth, is there a probability of success? America is strong militarily, and Iraq is not, so we may well be able to defeat their armed forces within a couple of months. But this criterion fails when we consider how long we would have to be tied down in Iraq in order to win the peace. An article by James Fallows in the November issue of Atlantic Monthly estimated Iraq would in effect have to become our fifty-first state, with a huge humanitarian crisis, need for broad economic reconstruction and call for some 50,000-75,000 U.S. troops for many years to restore civil order under fire and to defend Iraq's borders. There would be continuing casualties, costs would probably run in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and that would have a dramatic impact on providing services to U.S. citizens.

Test of proportionality: Fifth, is it likely that greater evil will be created by going to war than by not? If Iraq does have weapons of mass destruction, would not this new war run great risk of triggering the very use of weapons of mass destruction that we are so desperately trying to prevent? Moreover, is it not likely that such a war will infuriate much of the Muslim world and solidify them against us?

Certainly a war against Iraq could stimulate more terrorism against this country and its citizens rather than less. The world becomes more dangerous if the United States is seen as an aggressor nation engaged in pre-emptive war. Why should everyone else not abandon the U.N. charter to pursue their own pre- emptive strikes where they feel at risk, from Kashmir to North Korea?

And concentrating our resources on a war in Iraq could well mean that al Qaeda and related terrorist groups, along with countries like North Korea, are emboldened as we have less resources and less attention to pay to those potentially greater threats.

No civilian targets: Sixth and finally, would innocent men, women and children be spared in a war against Iraq? The United States has precision smart bombs, but what if we end up in door-to-door fighting in Baghdad? What about civilian death and suffering based on destruction of Iraq's infrastructure, piled on top of civilian death and suffering under the sanctions and embargo of the last 12 years? This is still a devastated country that we would in effect be finishing off, with a huge impact on its civilian population. U.N. estimates are of 500,000 civilian casualties, directly and indirectly due to a war, with some 2 million civilians displaced.

"People of good will may differ on how to apply just war norms in particular cases, especially when events are moving rapidly and the facts are not altogether clear," as the U.S. Catholic Bishops recently put it. Yet, here it appears that none of the traditional requirements is met for a war against Iraq, and they all must be satisfied for a war to be just.

So what are we left with? Diplomacy, inspections, intelligence-gathering, sanctions, containment, international solidarity, humanitarian assistance to the civilian population of Iraq, vigilance and patience. Abraham Lincoln warned us that right makes might, and not the other way around.

Basic moral and spiritual values are the lifeblood of this country, and without them the American way of life itself is in grave peril. We must not go to war with Iraq.

Scotty McLennan is dean for religious life at Stanford University. As Garry Trudeau's roommate at Yale, he served as the model for Doonesbury's Rev. Scot Sloan.

©2003 San Francisco Chronicle

###