Cassius

• 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.

I doubt many of us would argue that the War on Drugs is a just war. But is the War on Terror a just war?

CrazyHair

I agree with most of that but could you give a source please?

__________________
Freedom is free, war costs 165 billion dollars... at last count.

Cassius

It comes from Just War Theory, I learned it in one of my politics classes a few years back. In this case the source I cited is http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm, but this list can be found in a number of other places.

In particular my concerns largely deal with item 4: is the War on Terror winnable? Have we defined what constitutes victory? Do we have an exit strategy?

Hiz Highness

I think the idea of pursuing terrorist organizations that attack Americans is just. However, I think declaring a war on an ambiguous noun like "terrorism", and then trotting out the "war on terrorism" to quell political dissent or to justify other unrelated or immoral actions is not "just" by any stretch.

-HH

Cassius

But we're not pursuing terrorist organizations that attack Americans. We're pursuing all terrorist organizations. Can we ever be rid of them all? Will the war ever be completed?

Also, war should be a last resort. Are there non-violent ways of eliminating terrorism? I submit that with the proper intelligence, economic solutions in the form of eliminating terrorist organization's resources would be just as effective if not more so. And without the proper intelligence, even an armed conflict would not help us to eliminate all terrorist threats, so we need the intelligence no matter what.

JTP

I absolutely agree concerning the impact of developed intelligence. However, in light of the current prisoner issue how do you propose to gather intelligence?

MickityMike

This was a really cool thread idea, Cassius. Thanks! (Being raised as a Catholic, this stuff is pretty much ingrained.)

Putting aside any philosophical differences I have with St. Augustine’s theory, and/or the Catholic Church in general, here we go!

I’d say that over a decade of diplomatic attempts through the UN satisfies this condition as pertaining to Iraq. In regards to the larger GWOT, I’d say that we never had, and never will have, a chance to negotiate.

This point is kinda anachronistic in light of exactly who it is we’re fighting. Sure, we (er, most of us anyway) can say that the US government is a “legitimate authority.” But what of the Islamists? Or the Ba’athist government in Iraq? Interestingly enough, St. Auggie believed that war was a “logical extension of the act of governance.” And said governance was ordained by God.

So, while I think that we, the West, are legitimate in our authority, I do not believe that the Islamists are. But, like I said earlier, this point – and actually the entire concept of Just War Theory – doesn’t apply as neatly as some of us would like.

Afghanistan certainly fulfills this point, but Iraq can be a little iffy. According to St. Augustine’s writings, the war in Iraq may be justified as we acted to redress the wrong Iraq committed by violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, and/or the failure to cooperate with the UN – we did also act in the name of pre-emption. But then again, St. Augustine developed his theory long before the age of WMDs, terrorists, and the concept of world government (UN).

Ignoring the inherent realities of the Information Age, we might then conclude no real reasonable assertion to self-defense in the microscopic case of Iraq – especially if we ignore David Kay’s post-occupation assertion that Iraq would have acted as the WMD “arsenal” of terrorism. (Although, I’ll gladly argue that in the macroscopic sense of the GWOT, the invasion of Iraq was an act of self-defense. Or more appropriately, simply the next campaign in a greater war not initiated by the West.)

This one is pretty subjective.

I do not believe, nor do I think, our cause to be hopeless. I think it’ll take at least a generation, but I definitely don’t think it hopeless.

Well, if the West succeeds in establishing democracy in a region predominantly ruled by petty tyrants, I think that’ll be much more peaceful for everyone than what we all have now.

(Hmm, in light of this, can we argue that WWII was just in light of the fire-bombings of cities like Dresden?)

I don’t think we’ve used more force than necessary. In fact, I think we’ve been remarkably restrained in our reaction. (Think back to the days immediately after 9/11 – how many people did you personally overhear say, “We should nuke somebody. I don’t care who, just someone.")

(Although I will concede that I’m not happy seeing the word “reaction.” It’s an old military dictum that he who reacts to the enemy does not have the upper hand in the battle. Ideally, one wants the enemy reacting to his moves.)

Modern war has certainly blurred the **** out of this one. But, as much as we can, if only for the sake of PR, the West does try it’s best to avoid and prevent civilian casualties - while the entire strategy of our antagonists is fixated upon attacking civilians. There will be localized reports of incidents of civilian abuse, but on the whole, the West does not strategically target civilians (unlike the enemy, whose entire strategy is fixated upon killing civilians). ...Unless in the case of total war (see WWII and the US Civil War for examples).

Anyhoo, yeah, I think the GWOT is just as described by St. Augustine. If I believed in reincarnation, which I don’t, I think I’d like to come back as a philosopher. (I can almost see the heads of my “opponents” spinnin’ like tops at that thought.)

__________________
I'd be delighted to live in a country where happily married gay couples had closets full of assault weapons. - Glenn Reynolds

Herb Ninja

You can kill a terrorist leader with a bullet, and you could also kill him with a bomb. Whats more likely to create civilian casualties, the bullet or the bomb that leveled an apartment building on assumption that it contained terrorists? Soldiers are not civilians, and if were going to "liberate" their country all means need to be taken to prevent killing innocents in their country, including allowing more of our soldiers to die by being extra cautious of where they direct their force. It should be us making the sacrifice, not them, because it was our idea, not theirs. All measures need to be taken to reduce civilian casualties to a minimal, and if that means not using explosive weapons so be it. Every civilian that dies from our weapons are revealing the failure of this war.

"Freedom" means countless Iraqis lay in graves marked by scars from our policies.

"Freedom" means you accept the occupation of your country by foreign invaders, and close newspapers that condone resistence.

"Freedom" means your either with Bush, or your with the terrorists.

"Freedom" means forced democracy.

What does "Freedom" mean to me? Its merely a lost dream in a sea of false expectations. Peace, HN-

"Section 12. That the freedom of the press is one of the great bulwarks of liberty, and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." Virgina Declaration Of Rights-

"Conservatives see how the principle of “unintended consequences” dooms domestic social programs to failure; but they fail to see how the same principle applies to war. They expect war, alone among government projects, to be efficient in achieving its goals; they are reluctant to admit failure, preferring to believe that more force will produce success." Joseph Sobran-

__________________
"Truth is treason in an empire of lies." -Ron Paul

MickityMike

"Countless"? I view “countless” as in WWII terms. Countless as the number of deaths experienced under Maoist China. Countless as in Stalinist Soviet Union. You don’t pretend to think that civilian deaths in Iraq are all due to US policy, do you? You don’t think that insurgent/terrorist forces bear responsibility as well?

By “resistance” you mean violence against Americans and the Coalition, right? In light of this claim, I must ask: Whose side are you on? Are you with those would “impose” democracy (I say “impose” even though that’s what the majority wants) or with those that would eliminate the chance at self-government in Iraq?

Are the "terrorists" fighting for freedom? Or are they fighting for fascism and theoracy?

That's an interesting assertion in that every poll out of Iraq since the beginning of the war has affirmed the majority Iraqi preference for democracy vs. anything else.

Right. And you’d take our flawed democracy in exchange for what exactly?

Yep. And I disagreed with one closing of Sadr's papers, as expressed in a long-lost WIC thread, but the defense of was that it was inciting violence. How does that charge reconcile with the Virginia Declaration of Rights?

As if to say that all war is failure and produces no results? War is "diplomacy by other means." And more often than not, as documented by history, war has solved more problems than it's created.

Herbie, for point of reference as to the war as a whole, if you were President on 9/11, how might you have instructed your country to react?

*EDIT* Holy ****, this was my 1,000th post! Praise me, all. PRAISE ME!

Hiz Highness

Whose side are you on? The one that supports freedom of the press, or the one that opposes it? It isn't freedom if we go over there and regulate everything that's printed, aired, or viewed by the people.


Good question. If I had to guess I'd say they're fighting for theocracy. The question is are we over there fighting for "freedom", or are we fighting for facism and theocracy? We shut down Al Sadr's paper, and we don't want to hold popular elections in the region because a majority of Iraqi's are Shi'ite. If we're not going to hold popular elections and let the people speak freely, then what exactly are we fighting for at this point?

But you still disagreed with the act of shutting down what would be "free press" over here. And I'm with you. When you invade another country and then quell the voices of opposition you move from being viewed as a liberator to being viewed as the next tyrant. Shutting down that paper was a bad idea. Sadr was attacking us with words before, what is he attacking us with now?

I'm going to have to question this one. Since America has won the majority of it's wars I can see why Americans may feel this way, but I'm not convinced that the statement as a whole is true.

-HH