An unfortunate consequence of the past few decades is that many contemporary Christians in the USA consider the Just War tradition to be obsolete. Having lived with decades of “forever wars,” people have become accustomed to having our nation constantly engaged in some conflict somewhere. It can seem reasonable to wonder how St. Thomas, who lived hundreds of years ago, could possibly have anything to teach us about modern warfare, but one has to remember that what he gave us was a set of enduring principles. They do not become obsolete due to the nature of contemporary weapons or politics. One could not disagree that the commandment “thou shall not steal” endures to the present even though the theft may be in electronic form. Similarly enduring are the principles articulated to describe the Just War tradition. A revival of the strict application of these principles would eliminate most of the conflicts in which the US has been engaged in recent decades and would resolve many of today’s problems.
The principles of the Just War are laid out in the Summa Theologicae, written by Saint Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century. The bar is set very high: there must be just cause for the conflict, proportionality must be exercised, the conflict must come as a last resort, it must be declared by competent authority, there must be a reasonable chance of success, and injury or death of noncombatants must be avoided. These principles can be broadly categorized as falling into three categories:
- Jus ad bellum: This category deals with the question of the decision to engage in war, and involves the principles of having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, and having a reasonable chance of success.
- Jus in bello: This category deals with the questions of how the war is conducted, specifically using means proportional to the end and avoiding unnecessary collateral damage, death and injury of the civilian population.
There is a further category of considerations, jus post bellum, that deal with establishing a lasting peace in the wake of the conflict. These considerations include avoiding punitive measures taken against a civilian population and avoiding barbaric treatment of the conquered military. A strict application of this category of considerations would have prevented World War II by concluding World War I with a less vindictive post-war arrangement. A strict application of all of the above would have prevented the US involvement in World War I to begin with.
We are led to believe that certain alliances are necessary and they cannot be broken. They are permanent. There is nothing we can do about it; our servicemen will be engaging in conflicts that are necessitated by these alliances and that’s the end of it. The politicians do not have to justify anything. "NATO is going to war and we’re part of NATO!"
The never-ending involvement of our nation in unnecessary and unjust conflicts should be addressed by US Catholics and our pro-life allies with a sense of urgency. We have a window of opportunity to break the cycle of the “forever wars.” An obvious place to start is to disentangle ourselves from alliances that drag us into conflict.
In his farewell address George Washington advised against establishing permanent alliances with other countries, which, he asserted, would eventually work against our national interests. Much of his address was dedicated to the need for impartiality in dealing with other nations. Here is the key thought:
“Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extra ordinary emergencies.”
The meaning is clear, particularly when read in the context of the rest of the address. Alliances should be temporary, and tailored to meet the needs of a particular situation. Thomas Jefferson used the term “entangling alliances” in his inaugural address on March 4, 1801. In enumerating what he considered to be essential principles of the government, and therefore those principles which should shape its administration, he included “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none…”
This advice from Jefferson and Washington reflects the Catholic understanding of jus ad bellum (making morally just decisions about engaging in war). By following this advice and expecting our political leadership to conform to it, we may be labeled as “isolationists,” but we are doing our duty. The fact that we live under a representative form of government means that all of us share in the moral responsibility for decisions made regarding the use of military force, whether we like it or not. St. Thomas presented the principles of the Just War during an era of monarchy. The considerations of jus ad bellum were the moral responsibility of the monarch and a few close advisers. At that time the citizen soldier only had the burden of moral responsibility for personal conduct during the war. Officers commanding units had additional responsibilities of enforcing conduct of soldiers within their command, for example to prevent pillage, rape, and wanton destruction of villages. Decisions to engage in war were left to the monarch.
In fact, there is no reason for us to remain a member of the NATO alliance. Washington referred to it as a “temporary alliance for extra ordinary purposes.” It was initially established in 1949 as a coalition of nations working together against Soviet expansion. The reason for our participation in NATO ceased to exist, but we lingered on, and soon the alliance morphed into a dangerous tool for provoking conflict with Russia.
Contemporary civilizations, including ours, reject the notion of monarchy as a form of government and favor representative government in which “We the People” are the decision makers. Therefore, the questions of jus ad bellum which would have once been the moral responsibility of the monarch now fall upon all of us. This means that each of us bears some share of responsibility for our government’s policies. We will ultimately be judged on how we handle this responsibility. Even those who do not believe in final judgement have an interest in our nation making wise decisions about war. Our decisions now will determine how we will be treated in the history books, and living successors (children, grandchildren) will feel the consequences of their ancestors having engaged in an unjust war.
The entangling alliances we were warned about have become a bureaucratic tool used to pry this decision-making responsibility from our hands. We are led to believe that these alliances are necessary, they are essential, and they cannot be broken. They are permanent. There is nothing we can do about it; our servicemen will be engaging in conflicts that are necessitated by these alliances and that’s the end of it. The politicians do not have to justify anything. NATO is going to war and we’re part of NATO!
In fact, there is no reason for us to remain a member of the NATO alliance. This alliance can be categorized as what Washington was referring to as a “temporary alliance for extra ordinary purposes.” It was initially established in 1949 as a coalition of nations working together against Soviet expansion. Essentially it was a group of European nations desiring assurance from the US that we had their back if the Soviets attempted to move on Western Europe. It served its purpose for a period of time, but since the 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union our participation in NATO no longer serves the interests of the US. We should have departed immediately. The reason for our participation in NATO had ceased to exist, and our departure from the alliance would have been in keeping with the guidance of our first president.
Instead we lingered on, and soon the alliance morphed into a dangerous tool for provoking conflict with Russia. Initially, at the end of the Cold War, Secretary of State James Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that we would not expand NATO, with his exact words being “not one inch eastward.” [1] We broke the promise with rounds of NATO expansion during 1999, 2004, 2009, 2017, and 2020. Article 5 of the NATO Charter states that an attack on any one of the allies is considered an attack on the entire alliance. The addition of each new NATO ally increased the possibility of our being drawn into a conflict that, in reality, has nothing to do with our own national interests or the protection of our people. Within recent years (particularly in recent months) our involvement in NATO has brought us to the brink of nuclear war. With the support of the NATO leadership [2] the Biden Administration authorized long range strikes into Russia. President Putin updated the Russian nuclear doctrine to “…consider aggression from any non-nuclear state – but with the participation of a nuclear country – a joint attack on Russia.” [3] Fortunately for all of us, cooler heads prevailed.
NATO. Our interests and requirements in Europe revolve around our continued obligations to this obsolete Cold War coalition.
A recent article in Foreign Affairs by Senator Mitch McConnell, “The Price of American Retreat: Why Washington Must Reject Isolationism and Embrace Primacy,” has a title that seems to indicate that McConnell is directing his sage advice to our first President, Washington, whose position he would definitely categorize as “isolationist.” His foreign policy advice to incoming President Trump [4] seems to offer only two choices: “hard power,” by which he means doing whatever necessary to confront China and Russia, or give in to “left-wing faith in hollow internationalism and right-wing flirtation with isolation and decline.” The idea of minding our own business and just using our military when doing so is consistent with just war doctrine is not even in the picture. He strokes fear with a grim picture of the future: “Donald Trump will inherit a world far more hostile to U.S. interests than the one he left behind four years ago…” he says. But reading between the lines, it’s all about money.
“To reverse the neglect of military strength, his administration must commit to a significant and sustained increase in defense spending, generational investments in the defense industrial base…”
“Despite legitimate misgivings about Biden’s approach, a majority of my GOP colleagues appreciated that support for Ukraine is an investment in U.S. national security. They recognized that most of the money was going to the U.S. defense industrial base or military…”
“Progress on this front begins with real increases in defense spending.”
There are numerous other references to the need for more money.
The article is laced with paranoia about Russia, but it is difficult to determine whether it is real or something designed to incite fear (and consequently a need for more money). “A Russian victory [meaning that Russia takes control of the much abused Eastern, ethnically Russian provinces of Ukraine] would not only damage the United States’ interest in European security and increase U.S. military requirements in Europe…”
By now the evidence of corruption is undeniable. The foreign aid we send to Ukraine is being used to pay salaries for Ukrainian officials, and some of it is being used to increase the wealth of corrupt Ukrainian bureaucrats at the expense of US taxpayers.
What are those interests and requirements, exactly?
NATO. Our interests and requirements in Europe revolve around our continued obligations to this obsolete Cold War coalition. Keep in mind that, in order to be morally justified, war should be engaged in as a last resort, only when all other means have been exhausted. Our membership with NATO means that an attack on any one NATO ally will require that we deploy US troops. McConnell’s approach is risky at best, and at worst seems designed to drag us into endless conflicts that will keep the cash flowing for the defense industry, regardless of the consequential destruction. It looks like a thinly-veiled plea from within the defense industry.
The most compelling reason for ending our outdated participation in NATO is that our “allies” have taken a turn in recent decades that puts them at odds with basic principles of human rights upon which we as Americans have broad agreement. Young girls and women are raped and harassed in the UK and Germany, and the criminals are released while those responsible for enforcing the law show astonishing insensitivity to the victims. [5][6][7] Speaking words lifted directly from the Sacred Scriptures results in legal action being taken in various NATO countries [8][9][10].
These governments of our “NATO allies” are tyrannizing their own people. Who are we defending, and what are we defending them from? The idea that this alliance is necessary to defend Europe from a Russian invasion is laughable. Russia is interested in Russian-speaking provinces in Ukraine. On behalf of these much-abused populations among our NATO “allies” we should make our displeasure known and depart from the alliance. On behalf of the much-abused ethnically Russian people in the eastern provinces of Ukraine we should disassociate ourselves immediately with this conflict.
NATO can admit Ukraine into their coalition if they so desire, but they can do it without us. Our involvement in NATO is dangerous and it has nothing to do with defending the US, our people, or our interests. Clever Europeans are using us to settle old scores.
Three days after the inauguration of President Trump, Ukraine’s Zelenskyy was begging for US troops to go to Ukraine. [11] How could this use of US military force possibly be justified? There is no just cause. The deadline for holding elections in Ukraine has long since passed and there have been no elections, therefore defending Ukraine would not be “defending democracy.” [12] Defending democracy on the other side of the world would not pass the just cause criteria anyway since there is no immediate danger to our people. We cannot claim that direct military intervention would be a last resort, since shortly after the 2022 invasion NATO and the US sent British Prime Minister Boris Johnson to scuttle peace negotiations that were being held. [13]
By now the evidence of corruption is undeniable. The foreign aid we send to Ukraine is being used to pay salaries for Ukrainian officials [14], and some of it is being used to increase the wealth of corrupt Ukrainian bureaucrats at the expense of US taxpayers [15]. We have no idea where some of it is going, but according to Zelenskyy himself, Ukraine has received only $75 billion from the $177 billion of aid pledged by the US to in support of his effort. [16] Approximately $100 billion dollars cannot even be accounted for. Despite this lack of accountability, Zelenskyy is pressing for NATO membership, suggesting that it is the “cheapest” option for Ukraine’s allies. [16]
NATO can admit Ukraine into their coalition if they so desire, but they can do it without us. Our involvement in NATO is dangerous and it has nothing to do with defending the US, our people, or our interests. Clever Europeans are using us to settle old scores. Ukrainian officials and people within our military industrial complex are taking advantage of our apathy and indifference in order to increase their wealth. It’s being done at the expense of the lives of those who are doing the fighting, and at the expense of the US taxpayer.
War is an abstraction for the typical US resident, aside from some veterans and immigrants. We do not live in a nation torn by war, so our fellow citizens have no idea of the misery it causes: hunger, disease, maimed bodies, destroyed lives, and traumatized survivors. Catholics should be actively engaged in breaking up the political process behind the forever wars, and we can start by demanding of our Congressional Representatives and Senators an immediate departure from the NATO alliance. We also need to concern ourselves more with the question of how God will judge our nation than the question of whether someone on the Internet will call us an “isolationist.”
Latest from RTV — Mass Restoration | Michael Matt interviewed by African Traditionalist
[1] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
[2] https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-nato-military-chiefs-d020f72aaa3abec8e5fa971f7123ffe1
[3] https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/19/europe/ukraine-russia-atacms-biden-strike-intl/index.html
[4] https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/price-american-retreat-trump-mitch-mcconnell
[5] https://www.thefp.com/p/muslim-grooming-gangs-cover-up-keir-starmer-elon-musk
[6] https://www.newindianexpress.com/opinions/columns/ravi-shankar/2025/Jan/11/britains-rape-jihad
[7] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35231046
[8] https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/247477/finnish-mp-faces-criminal-charges-after-tweeting-bible-verse
[9] https://www.rferl.org/a/1057006.html
[10] https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/30do1n/its_official_uk_law_agrees_that_quoting_the_bible/
[11] https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2025/01/23/american-troops-must-be-deployed-to-ukraine-or-russia-wont-be-deterred-insists-zelensky-report/
[12] https://kyivindependent.com/ukraine-to-hold-elections-immediately-after-war/
[13] https://www.thenation.com/article/world/ukraine-russia-war-peace-diplomacy/
[14] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/following-american-money-in-ukraine-60-minutes/
[15] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cd7dvl0gn1lo
[16] https://www.intellinews.com/missing-money-delayed-arms-deliveries-and-demands-for-mining-deals-ukraine-s-relations-with-trump-are-off-to-a-rocky-start-365078/
