Principles of just war theory
01.24.2003OK, let's do more than just throw slogans back and forth at each other. I respect dissent and encourage discourse, but let's not just respond w/ cliché slogans. Besides, I'm tired of deleting annoying anonymous posts. So I'll do your homework for you ...
There is a body of international law and moral philosophy known as "just war theory." It stems from the assumption that some wars are justifiable, primarily in self-defense. Of course, the definition of self-defense is problematic and controversial (e.g. is a pre-emptive strike self-defense?). And, if you're a principled pacifist (believing that no war is justified and that military response is never appropriate), just war theory offers you little. Nevertheless ...
Here's an article by Mark Edward DeForrest (Gonzaga University) arguing that US air strikes in Iraq's northern no-fly zone don't meet just war theory's standards. He outlines the main principles and sources of just war theory. It's useful for anti-war arguments that go beyond hollow rhetoric or catchy slogans. Here's a list of just war theory's basic principles. And here's a Libertarian application of just war theory that ends up arguing for pacifism.
But be careful of where you get your just war theory from. Some groups that oppose war in Iraq have strange histories. Take this excerpt from Americans Against Bombing (a right-wing Catholic anti-war organization):
It was a Catholic sensibility that led Irish immigrants to massively resist the wartime draft in New York, and a Catholic sensibility that led a Catholic priest to become the Poet Laureate of the Confederate States of America. As Murray Rothbard argued in The Costs of War (Transaction, 1997), the South was justified in resisting invasion, and its efforts in that cause entirely accorded with Just War doctrine. It's no wonder Catholics here and abroad-for instance Lord Acton-took the Southern Side. Acton's moving letter to Robert E. Lee after Appomattox is a stirring defense of what Acton called the "Principles of Montgomery," named after the first capital of the Confederacy, and an accurate prediction of where Northern militarism and imperialism would lead America ...
In the inter-war period, however, there was a just war, because it was eminently defensive. American Catholics prayed for the forces of Francisco Franco as they defended Spain against the monstrous central government. Of course, Franklin D. Roosevelt and his ally Stalin supported the Communists. To this day, the U.S. government and its mouthpieces like the New York Times still herald the appropriately named Lincoln Brigade of New York Communists who went to Spain to help kill priests and nuns.
Note that this group supported Southern secession and Franco's fascist regime. Of course, not all anti-war groups have such a history. But it's important to be careful about who your bedfellows are. After all, if pro-war hawks are to be condemned for having at some previous time supported bad causes, then it's fair to be even-handed.
Finally, there are arguments drawn from just war theory that defend the current US policy on Iraq. So don't think just war theory swings only one way.
Posted by Miguel at 11:14 PM
Comments
When is it ok to go to war? Is there ever a time when it is ok? Even if we did find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which they still have not (a few abandoned warheads certainly does not account for much), is that enough to go to war for? How do we measure the intent, though? If we went to war with Iraq for believing that they would use the weapons on us, the pre-emptive theory, then what about North Korea, India, and Pakistan? Even the US could be the victim of this pre-emptive notion and treated like Iraq. How can someone prove with complete certainty that any bomb will be used against us? Do we honestly want to trust our government to this decision, when they have been proven to lie in the past? The Pentagon issued depleted uranium in Iraq in 1991 to the military. We had so much of this stuff lying around we decided to put it "to use" in our weapons. The first war in the gulf was equal to the power of 7 and a half Hiroshima's and the deserts and towns of Iraq still lie with radioactive material. There are US veteran soldiers today who are facing serious health issues but are ignored. Hopefully their "problem" goes away before our government has to admit to any wrongdoing. How could we trust a government who lies to their own soldiers to judge the intent of weaponry use by any country?
When is it ok to go to war? We are already at war. I believe that any attack on anyone constitutes a war. These sanctions, that are placed on Iraq have been directly focused on the citizens of Iraq. The last principle in the "Just War" states "Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians" (Just War Principles). The US claims that medicine and equipment could have a dual-use, meaning that they could be used in warfare as well as in hospitals and the US then denies Iraq many basic necessities. While in hospitals doctors have to choose between patients that they can help and those that must be left to die due to the lack of proper technology, medicine, and equipment. There is only one Iraqi hospital that has a machine for radiation treatment. All of the other 13-year-old machines have broken down. I believe that there is only one excuse for war as the first principle of the "just war" states "A just war can only be waged as a last resort." An example would be Rwanda, but because it wasn't in our self interest to protect these people, then it became too late. Let the UN decide the fate of Iraq, but then again doesn't the US control the UN?
Posted by: James at January 25, 2003 12:45 PM
I followed the links you provided, but they don't necessarily support your claims. The link you use to support the comparison between the Gulf War and Hiroshima doesn't even mention Hiroshima. The link that claims that arms inspectors haven't found weapons of mass destruction doesn't say that at all, but rather that the Security Council is not yet ready to assess the inspectors' preliminary report. Be careful of the sources you site and what they actually say.
Finally, I agree that if anyone believes that no war is ever acceptable, then no argument in favor of another Iraq war will win one over. I, however, believe that war is sometimes acceptable. There are things worth fighting (and even dying) for.
The question at hand is not whether war is good (I agree that war is a horrible thing). The question at hand is whether or not that particular war at this particular time is justifiable. I think it is ... even if only by a slim margin.
Posted by: Miguel at January 26, 2003 04:04 AM
12 December 2003
Greetings fellow philosophers,
Thank you for contributing the article titled, Principles of just war theory on web page: http://www.centellas.org/miguel/archives/000042.html .
Please help me further develop my philosophical thinking as to who/what/where/when/how it is just to go to war.
Thank you,
RR
Posted by: Randy Rambo at December 11, 2003 09:23 PM
12 December 2003
...and include why it is just to go to war.
RR
Posted by: Randy Rambo at December 11, 2003 09:26 PM
The point of my post was actually to provide a philosophical underpinnings for an argument against the war. Most of the anti-war movement was filled w/ petty rhetoric, so I figured I'd help them out.
My arguments for the justness of the war are sprinkled in dozens of other posts I made during a several-months-long period. You can read those, if you'd like. I don't really have time right now to go into them in detail.
However, using just war theory, one can build an argument in support for war. I'm not a pacifist, and neither is just war theory (obviously). Some of the basic requirements are that the war must be waged either in self-defense (people and nations always have the right to defend themselves), or to right a legitimate wrong. The war must be waged ethically (efforts made to minimize civilian casualties, for example) and must have a reasonable chance of winning (a war that can't be won isn't ethical under just war theory). The harm of the war must be minimal, and enemy must be given mercy when choosing to surrender and after the war. I think the Iraq war met those criteria.
Posted by: Miguel at December 12, 2003 02:47 PM