CARDINAL RATZINGER SAYS UNILATERAL ATTACK ON IRAQ NOT JUSTIFIED --EWTN News Story

The "concept of a 'preventive war' does not appear in the Catechism of the Catholic Church," Cardinal Ratzinger noted.
"One cannot simply say that the catechism does not legitimize the war," he continued. "But it is true that the catechism has developed a doctrine that, on one hand, does not exclude the fact that there are values and peoples that must be defended in some circumstances; on the other hand, it offers a very precise doctrine on the limits of these possibilities."

I guess there is the question of what exactly constitutes a war. If there is no declaration but a substantial deployment of forces and very targetted by significant strikes, is that a war or a raid that falls out of the definition of war?

Very targetted strikes strikes would be the way to go.

The Catechism says

2308
All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.


However, "as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed."106


2309
The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:


the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;


all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

there must be serious prospects of success;


the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.


These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.


The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

U.S. self defense argument is a stretch, but we can argue that a greater evil is being prevented than is certain to be caused if no action is taken. What Bush and his people need to do is convince us and the world that the danger is imminent and that this situation is not a new doctrine but an exception given unique circumstances. The reason is that we could very well find ourselves in tricky situations with Russsia taken preventative action against places like Georgia or China, Taiwan and other powers could engage in such action.

If is not entirely clear to me that we don't face as much of a risk with Pakistan who has nuclear weapons and the extremists with the will to use them.