Just War Principles

[Zguy28]

I came across this on a site and wondered how the wars that the United States has been involved in would measure up.

I realize Iraq is going to generate heated debate, but I think we all know each others positions on it.

Please try to constrain the debate on Iraq (and the rest of the thread) to within the framework of the criteria presented. Keep the politics to a minimum. If you can't present a reasonable argument for a point without bringing politics (or parties/candidates) into it, then perhaps you should refrain from posting.

Also, I would prefer if you address the principle that you wish to comment on by quoting it individually followed by the comment.

-------------------------------------------------

Principles of the Just War

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
  

[Henry]

Sounds fairly reasonable to me except for the last two parts.

[Zguy28]

Sounds fairly reasonable to me except for the last two parts.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

I would definitely say that WWII failed on that last one. Didn't we bomb entire cities?

[DGreenistheBest]

I only disagree with:

"A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable."

Sometimes, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

[Corcaigh]

A few off the cuff comments ...

• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  

I understand where this point is coming from, but who determines what is legitimate authority? Some of the greatest heroism in WW II was from the French Resistance who fought the German occupation against impossible odds. Often their communities faced terrible reprisals because of their actions but I don't think you can call their behavior immoral.

• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  

Again, the French Resistance comes to mind. Is it morally better to die on your feet than to live on your knees subject to an evil empire?

• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
  

That might have been applicable in the 18th century, but in modern warfare, the battlefield is everywhere. Civilians working in armaments factories or providing food for enemy soldiers are part of the military supply chain.

[Henry]

I would definitely say that WWII failed on that last one. Didn't we bomb entire cities?

Yes. I don't think there is such a thing as a 'limited objective' in a war. If, as the first criteria states, war is the last resort, the objective of waging a war is to win it. Period.

Proportional violence? How does that work, exactly? You wait until another nation damages you, then set up a think-tank to determine exactly how much damage you are allowed to mete out in response? Nonsense. Again that makes no sense against the last resort situation set out up front.

[Helter_Skelter]

oh, boy. this will be good

[Zguy28]

A few off the cuff comments ...

I understand where this point is coming from, but who determines what is legitimate authority? Some of the greatest heroism in WW II was from the French Resistance who fought the German occupation against impossible odds. Often their communities faced terrible reprisals because of their actions but I don't think you can call their behavior immoral.

Again, the French Resistance comes to mind. Is it morally better to die on your feet than to live on your knees subject to an evil empire?

I would think the French resistance fighters would fall under number three.

A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

I am not sure if a war should be required to satisfy all of the princples or not to be considered just.

[hokie4redskins]

Sometimes, it's better to die on your feet than live on your knees.

Whatever you say "Che".

The problem with JWT is the attempt to impose a universal moral framework in an anarchic international system. Who or what is the overarching authority that can enforce JWT? The UN? Geneva?

:laugh:

The fact of the matter is, one man's morality is another man's tragedy. If we adhere to certain moral frameworks of which our enemies are quick to dismiss, do we not put ourselves at an inherent disadvantage in conducting warfare?

My answer is yes, we do.

Not to mention, JWT is focuses on Westphalian-type actors, i.e. state vs. state. The rise of non-state actors alone especially with the GWOT makes the JWT obsolete. The enemy we face does not have any legitimate state/government authority. That alone renders JWT moot, yet some still expect us to adhere to it. Why? To give our enemies a fighting chance?

At best, JWT is an out-dated moral framework that needs to be updated to account for current global factors. I don't think Augustine and Aquinas were privy to current international dynamics and threats.

[DGreenistheBest]

Whatever you say "Che".

What did I say to deserve this condescending response? :whoknows:

[Corcaigh]

I would definitely say that WWII failed on that last one. Didn't we bomb entire cities?

The raids on some German cities, especially those by the RAF involving incendiaries, were quite deliberate attempts to obliterate the population and their residences. But the Germans had been bombing civilians indiscriminately and both countries were involved in a fight to the death. It was total war. My mother was in Liverpool during WW II and had to move seven times because of bomb damage.

Prof Lindemann was an advisor to Churchill and wrote a famous doocument known as the "dehousing paper" in which he essentially argued that the best way to beat the Germans was to render their civilian population homeless and destroy their morale.

Thanks to Wikipedia, here's a quote:

"In 1938 over 22 million Germans lived in fifty-eight towns of over 100,000 inhabitants, which, with modern equipment, should be easy to find and hit. Our forecast output of heavy bombers (including Wellingtons) between now and the middle of 1943 is about 10,000. If even half the total load of 10,000 bombers were dropped on the built-up areas of these fifty-eight German towns the great majority of their inhabitants (about one-third of the German population) would be turned out of house and home. Investigation seems to show that having one's home demolished is most damaging to morale. People seem to mind it more than having their friends or even relatives killed. At Hull signs of strain were evident, though only one-tenth of the houses were demolished. On the above figures we should be able to do ten times as much harm to each of the fifty-eight principal German towns. There seems little doubt that this would break the spirit of the people"

The head of the RAF, Arthur Harris (also known as Bomber Harris, and even Butcher Harris) implemented this with zeal and coined the term 'strategic area bombing' where as the approach before then was known as 'precision bombing' (even if the bombs usually missed by miles). Even in the UK, a segment of the population saw Harris as a war criminal and his memorial was under guard to prevent vandalism of it.

Dresden was perhaps the most famous raid in 1945 when an estimated 30,000+ civilians died in the fires. Churchill himself questioned whether the "terror" policy should be continued to which Arthur Harris replied "I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British Grenadier."

[SnyderShrugged]

How does our current "war" in Iraq stack up?

"A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered."

[nonniey]

Don't know where these principals come from but they are utterly ridiculous and unattainable. Whoever laid these out is obviously trying to say no war is justifiable (even defensive wars). I'll use WWII as baseline here.

>A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable<

According to this Poland and many of the other states that were attacked and conqueered by the AXIS were morally unjustified in fighting the Germans. (I do not include those states that thought they actually had a chance - ie France).

>A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.<

In WWII Britian and France failed the test here by declaring war on NAZI Germany instead of attempting further diplomatic and economic measures.

>The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.<

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of 10 times the number of civilians they killed by bringing the war to a swift conclusion.

>The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.<

The United States infllicted a greater than 20-1 kill ratio against the Japanese military. Was that propotional? Were we supposed to let them catch up when we got ahead in the body count?

In reality the only unjustifiable war is one that is lost.

[Corcaigh]

In WWII Britian and France failed the test here by declaring war on NAZI Germany instead of attempting further diplomatic and economic measures.

I know you're not arguing that Britan wasn't justified in declaring war, but they did have a pact with Poland to defend it in case of invasion. And what diplomatic measures would have worked with Hitler?:laugh:

[nonniey]

I know you're not arguing that Britan wasn't justified in declaring war, but they did have a pact with Poland to defend it in case of invasion. And what diplomatic measures would have worked with Hitler?:laugh:

None would have worked with Hitler. But that is beside the point according to the stupid and unattainable criteria of defining Just War, Britian and France should have tried some more non violent measure before declaring war.

[Corcaigh]

None would have worked with Hitler. But that is beside the point according to the stupid and unattainable criteria of defining Just War, Britian and France should have tried some more non violent measure before declaring war.

Such as sending a curt note with some warm beer?

[Helter_Skelter]

How about the Bush doctrine of pre-emption?

[gchwood]

That is the most ridiculous concept I have ever seen.

[Zguy28]

Don't know where these principals come from but they are utterly ridiculous and unattainable. Whoever laid these out is obviously trying to say no war is justifiable (even defensive wars). I'll use WWII as baseline here.

They have been around for a long time. The name Augustine ring a bell?

Go here for more info.

>A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable<

According to this Poland and many of the other states that were attacked and conqueered by the AXIS were morally unjustified in fighting the Germans. (I do not include those states that thought they actually had a chance - ie France).

I think you are misapplying it. You must view this from a framework of "going to war" not merely defending your home.

Example: The USA going to France or Korea.

>A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.<

In WWII Britian and France failed the test here by declaring war on NAZI Germany instead of attempting further diplomatic and economic measures.

Were not all other options exhausted? I imagine so since Germany attacked France and Britain.

>The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.<

The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved the lives of 10 times the number of civilians they killed by bringing the war to a swift conclusion.

That is arguable. Does that position stand up to moral scrutiny? Is it a good enough excuse for attacking innocent people?

Questions that must be asked.

>The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.<

The United States infllicted a greater than 20-1 kill ratio against the Japanese military. Was that propotional? Were we supposed to let them catch up when we got ahead in the body count?

What this principle is saying is that, according to the example you used (Japan), the just war scenario would have been to repel Japan back to it original position. Certainly some just war theorists would argue that it includes destroying the enemy's war making capabilities as well.

[stevenaa]

The only just war is the war you win.

[pat fischer 37]

If you guys really want to know about "Just War" you should read early Christian writings like Tertullian or the Thundering Herd. "Christians and the Military" by John Helgeland is a good book covering this topic.

Heck, if you really want to look at "Just War" in a different way look into the true meaning of Jihad or more appropriately "Qital". Unfortunately the Western Media has placed this improper moniker on Jihad when Jihad is more about the struggle within oneself, the Lesser Jihad and the greater Jihad, the struggle with forces that challenge Islam. But "Qital" is the proper term regarding the fighting that many extreme muslims mistakenly practice when they attack.

If you are willing to really look into this topic you should read some of the writings of Dr. John Kelsay from Florida State University. He is one of the pre-eminent scholars on this subject.

[Fake Plastic Skins]

There's no such thing as a "just" war. There's such a thing as a right war and a wrong war, but which of those a war is depends on your viewpoint. If that wasn't the case, then there wouldn't be any wars.

[nonniey]

Were not all other options exhausted? I imagine so since Germany attacked France and Britain.]

Er no Germany had not attacked France and Britian. Germany had attacked Poland. Britian and France declared war on Germany three days later when Germany failed to withdraw from Poland. There technically were other non-violent actions that the British and the French could have enacted instead of declaring war. Non violent actions could never be exhausted (as limitless as ones imagination) so any war other that a defensive action from direct attack would fail the idiotic criteria for a Just War (or at least the criteria outlined here).

As for your question about America's Wars not a single one would have been just according to the rules laid out here. For that matter I can not think of any "just war" in human history given that criteria.

[Destino]

First of all let me say that a just war is the same difference between killing and self defense and murder. If someone is attacking you and you shoot them it's just. If you kill the guy down the street because you don't like him or simply are afraid of him... it's not just.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.

The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

These two point create never ending war. War should be painful bloody and as horrible as needed. This discourages it from going on without an end. trading tit for tat in war allows the battle to go on by limiting the risk of the combatants. If I kill 2 of them they will kill 2 of us... BUT I WON'T LOSE POWER! ...and it continues forever.

[Teller]

"I came across this on a site," flies these days.

OK.

:doh: