David Cameron’s proposed airstrikes in Syria will violate just war doctrine

Matthew D’Ancona’s claim (Opinion, 30 November) that bombing Syria “would not have troubled Augustine or Aquinas” needs to be challenged. The just war doctrine which they formulated lays down six strict conditions, all of which have to be fulfilled for a war to be acceptable in the Christian moral tradition.

First, the cause must be just. D’Ancona argues that any war of self-defence is simply justifiable, but this would not be true if terrorist attacks against us became more likely. Second, there needs to be lawful authority. If the UN motion encompassed military action, why would it ever be necessary to seek a more specific resolution? Third, the intention behind a war needs to be good. It is not easy to claim this if we don’t really have a clear intention within the complex situation in Syria. The fourth criterion says that all other means of solving the problem must have been attempted. This is manifestly not the case: there still need to be proper negotiations to end the civil war in Syria, and more needs to be done to cut off Isis’s supply of arms and money. The fifth condition insists that there is a reasonable chance of success: nothing David Cameron has said has shown that this would be so. Finally, what is proposed must be proportionate to the aims intended. Since we know Isis is embedded in civilian areas, the likelihood of substantial casualties rules out the proposed action on these grounds.