In these theologians' views, "just wars" must be waged by a broad, legitimate authority and never on behalf of individuals; they must be for a just cause; and they must advance the good or oppose the spread of evil.

But is war ever truly just?

Though we may make distinctions between evil and good, combatants and noncombatants, soldiers and civilians, when do our warring actions ever truly spare the cost of innocent lives? And how do we decide what “costs”—both military and "collateral"—are worth the “price” of winning? And what about the more “hidden” costs of war—the arms and legs lost, the pride crushed, the bodies raped, the families torn apart? How do we develop criteria to decide what price is “just” in this regard?

Even Augustine believed that the “wise man will wage just wars,” but that because he is wise, he will still lament the need for just wars in the first place.

Regarding Iraq, while Bush has certainly shown that he is stubborn and unrelentingly confident during the course of his Administration, when have these qualities ever passed for wisdom?

And despite the fact that Bush clearly and firmly believes that he has led this country into a "just war,” when have we ever seen Bush appear truly remorseful about the resulting situation both for the U.S. and Iraq? In addition, it is especially difficult to view the war in Iraq as somehow “just,” when genocide befalls the people of Darfur and we sit idly by. How is that “just”?

When I think of the Holocaust and the many genocides happening in our world today, it is hard to claim the label “pacifist” as my own. But I am also sure that I cannot ever call a war truly just, and I believe with all my heart that to be a pacifist in no way implies being “passive.” We have too many examples of nonviolent resistance to look toward—especially at this time of year, as we remember Martin Luther King, Jr.