Posted on May 25, 2015
Do our current war(s) fit your understanding of "Just War?"
5.33K
14
6
3
3
0
What is your understanding of "just war?" The photo illustrates one widely-accepted view. However, it clearly is not the only understanding or definition of "just war" theory. I wonder how today's conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq fit your definition of "just war." Can a war begin with "just war" principles and then shift into a different guiding principle? What of the American conflicts of 2015? How have they shifted since 2001? Do they fit a "just war" priniciple or are they something else? What do you think?
Foreign Policy
Ethics
Warfare
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
4
4
0
Whoa... This is a can of worms...
Let's go point by point.
1) Last resort. The use of Military Force, as Opposed to Diplomacy is where I think many mean here. Have we exhausted Diplomacy, or is Diplomacy no longer a valid option?
2) A Just Cause. Let's keep this simple. Are we doing Right, or are we doing Wrong?
3) Valid Authority. Our Constitution outlines this. Congress Declares War, or in modern times Authorizes Use of Military Force.
4) Probable Success. This is where things get tricky. I refer back to #2. Are we doing the Right thing? (Sometimes) It's not about Success, it's about doing the Right thing. Sometimes you know you won't be successful, but you have to TRY.
5) Proportionality. "Lest we become the monsters." The problem here is that sometimes you must escalate beyond your opponents ability to escalate back. We use shows of force a lot. Sometimes that is what is necessary to stop wars. The atomic bomb could not be considered to be proportional, but it could be considered necessary.
6) Exit Strategy. This is perhaps the most complex topic. An exit strategy is counter to fighting a war, as we do not know what the conditions will be after the war is completed. We just don't know. War is chaos. How can you create a plan for chaos? I disagree with this being part of a "Just War" as it is counter to War. I just can't wrap my head around this from an ethical, or philosophic standpoint. It just doesn't seem to work. If we are going to destroy a Nation, without harming the People (of said Nation), we cannot have an Exit Strategy. We must have a Long Term Plan instead. Exit Strategies are for Accountants, not Warfighters.
Let's go point by point.
1) Last resort. The use of Military Force, as Opposed to Diplomacy is where I think many mean here. Have we exhausted Diplomacy, or is Diplomacy no longer a valid option?
2) A Just Cause. Let's keep this simple. Are we doing Right, or are we doing Wrong?
3) Valid Authority. Our Constitution outlines this. Congress Declares War, or in modern times Authorizes Use of Military Force.
4) Probable Success. This is where things get tricky. I refer back to #2. Are we doing the Right thing? (Sometimes) It's not about Success, it's about doing the Right thing. Sometimes you know you won't be successful, but you have to TRY.
5) Proportionality. "Lest we become the monsters." The problem here is that sometimes you must escalate beyond your opponents ability to escalate back. We use shows of force a lot. Sometimes that is what is necessary to stop wars. The atomic bomb could not be considered to be proportional, but it could be considered necessary.
6) Exit Strategy. This is perhaps the most complex topic. An exit strategy is counter to fighting a war, as we do not know what the conditions will be after the war is completed. We just don't know. War is chaos. How can you create a plan for chaos? I disagree with this being part of a "Just War" as it is counter to War. I just can't wrap my head around this from an ethical, or philosophic standpoint. It just doesn't seem to work. If we are going to destroy a Nation, without harming the People (of said Nation), we cannot have an Exit Strategy. We must have a Long Term Plan instead. Exit Strategies are for Accountants, not Warfighters.
(4)
(0)
COL Vincent Stoneking
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS RE: #4, a very good point. I got wrapped up in my book-length reply on other aspects and skipped over that. This is also a tenet of "traditional" Just War theory. In practice it means that in the face of long odds, one should accept evil. I have issues with that.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
COL Vincent Stoneking You did a much better job on #6 than I did, so it all evens out.
(0)
(0)
"Exit Strategy" is a principle that would raise my eyebrows. I don't necessarily believe that we have (or had) an exit strategy for Afgh or Iraq, though I am also not saying that war is a simple academic exercise either.
(3)
(0)
1
1
0
They all make sense, while I acknowledge defining them is problematic. Except #5, proportionality is how we end up in long protracted wars. This point is usually made regarding Israeli response to Palestine. I would prefer over-whelming force. Or to quote one of my all time favorite quotables.
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!" Theodore Roosevelt
"Don't hit at all if it is honorably possible to avoid hitting; but never hit soft!" Theodore Roosevelt
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google