is there such a thing as "a just war"?

maria says the catholic church has this handy guide:

[quote]1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

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

3. there must be serious prospects of success;

4. 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" [CCC 2309].[/quote]

bah

theoretically? of course. practically, it's pretty rare.

sure

what would this theoretically just war look like?

aside from the dismembered corpses, blackened land and sobbing families that is

1939-1945

the good guys go to war with the bad guys.

Are you in search of a just war or a pretty one?

http://www.fsu.edu/~ww2/brokaw/Greatest%20generation%20bkc.jpg

in all seriousness, i think it's "just" to defend your safety and your freedom. so maybe a "just" war needs to be some ways defensive or reactive to aggression. (ie, WW2)

conveniently for this argument + hollywood, nazism

the entirety of all violence in wwii from 1939-1945 was "just"???

wtf

yes that's exactly it

world war 2 is... unique

also:

http://www.dantesheart.com/images/zombie.gif

the entirety of all violence in wwii from 1939-1945 was "just"???

― Tracer Hand, Friday, November 14, 2008 6:02 PM (58 seconds ago)

joek thread it is!

War on Poverty

not to sound like a pedant jackass but this is of course a "where you sit is where you stand" kind of question. if you accepted the logic of a global leninism trying to snuff out liberty and faith, all conflicts 1945-1989 are justified

short answer: no

Kerm i'm not the one who just named a set of years and called them "just"!

goole is right...the issue here is that there are different "foundational" values at play...this makes violence inevitable yet almost always regrettable.

slightly longer short answer: violence on a small, personal scale can sometimes be justified (self-defense in face of immediate threat, etc.). Militarized violence, by contrast, requires the murder of innocents and is thus always wrong.

Wie war es für Sie?

how would you have stopped hitler once he got rolling, shakey

i was being slightly facetious with the 1939-1945 comment...that's what it would "look like" in my opinion. ugly and horrible as hell. but it's not as if, say, France and Poland should have just let Germany waltz right in. where they wrong to wage war?

Militarized violence, by contrast, requires the murder of innocents and is thus always wrong.

So Britain and France shouldn't have declared war on Germany in September '39?

i hear poverty is also bad

i might argue that the united states, france, russia and england were fighting to stop a war - a war that was unjust

actually there's no might about it - that's what i think

this part gets tricky but it's the reason i posed the question

"First They Came..." is actually a guide to just living in unjust times.

hoos what did your priest say about iraq??

how is the phrase "fighting to stop a war" less silly than "just war"

ah ok..should rephrase the question: is it ever "just" to strike first? or to be the aggressor? etc... that's a difficult question (for me at least)

the entirety of all violence in wwii from 1939-1945 was "just"???

― Tracer Hand, Friday, November 14, 2008 6:02 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark

If you ask the question that way, you're making it impossible to come up with a just war. All wars involve unjust actions and unjust violence. It's inevitable. So, if you're accepting the premise you started with, you have to ask not whether it's possible to fight a war with no unjust consequences or actions, but whether it's possible to fight a war where the totality of those is still lighter than the unjustness that would result from not fighting the war.

ah ok..should rephrase the question: is it ever "just" to strike first? or to be the aggressor? etc... that's a difficult question (for me at least)

― ryan, Friday, November 14, 2008 5:16 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

thats a good question in that i think lots of conservative hawks today would say that world war ii could have been avoided if something had been done before germany got all mobilized for war, right?

there was a lot of rhetoric before Iraq 2 that Saddam was "waging war" on his own people daily...so even then it comes down to what wars are worth ending....i fear it often comes down to cost-benefit analysis.

I'm not arguing whether that's possible or whether it's even determinable, I just think you're making it impossible to answer your own question by equivocating. (xpost)

The war against challops is always just

The real problem is that you're usually weighing an unknown against an unknown.

i might argue that the united states, france, russia and england were fighting to stop a war - a war that was unjust

I think it bears pointing out, to be persnickety, that the UK and France declared war on Germany, The USSR was years away from war (w/Germany) and so was the US. USSR in '39 was almost as morally repugnant wrt Poland as Germany was.

world war ii narratives always unfairly minimize the soviet participation - in terms of pure casualties, the 'main event' was certainly the eastern front and the invasion of europe from the uk and us was a sideshow

in response to M. White's question: So Britain and France shouldn't have declared war on Germany in September '39?

Hurting's point is relevant: All wars involve unjust actions and unjust violence.

Since all militarized violence, by nature, requires unjust actions and unjust violence, war is by definition unjust.

Whether or not a war is WORTH fighting in the face of that fact is the sticking point, and yeah then you're into a cost/benefit analysis, which of course raises a whole host of other issues (what is considered a legitimate cost, beneficial to whom, etc.)

the entirety of all violence in wwii from 1939-1945 was "just"???

This made me laugh. Imagine the gangster shaking down someone for 'protection' money with the most serene conscience ever.

also re: the eastern front (thx for raising that deej) determining who was worse - Hitler or Stalin - is kind of impossible. Who's the "just" actor in that scenario?

Shaeky, I think that your definition and mine of 'just' are at odds.

1. guided by truth, reason, justice, and fairness: We hope to be just in our understanding of such difficult situations.
2. done or made according to principle; equitable; proper: a just reply.
3. based on right; rightful; lawful: a just claim.
4. in keeping with truth or fact; true; correct: a just analysis.
5. given or awarded rightly; deserved, as a sentence, punishment, or reward: a just penalty.
6. in accordance with standards or requirements; proper or right: just proportions.
7. (esp. in Biblical use) righteous.
8. actual, real, or genuine.
–adverb 9. within a brief preceding time; but a moment before: The sun just came out.
10. exactly or precisely: This is just what I mean.
11. by a narrow margin; barely: The arrow just missed the mark.
12. only or merely: He was just a clerk until he became ambitious.
13. actually; really; positively: The weather is just glorious.

(from dictionary.com)

It is noteworthy that the US never recognized the annexation of the Baltic States or Poland, even as it considered the USSR an ally against Germany.

omfg

Hurting's point is relevant: All wars involve unjust actions and unjust violence.

Since all militarized violence, by nature, requires unjust actions and unjust violence, war is by definition unjust.

The arguments for the Bush doctrine would say that, while all wars may involve unjust actions, inaction in the face of injustice can be just as evil. In other words, there is evil in the world whichever way you choose, but sometimes you have to choose to lessen it's presence or effect on a global ledger even when you know there will still be individual acts which are indefensible.

i mean there were 3 yrs of mass-genocide, rape, torture, ethnic cleansing, etc until nato stepped in - if they had done so earlier what would have happened?

"But what if your intel was trustworthy and it said that it would be quick and easy and you save the people from the evil regime, etc..?"

Haha jesus what is this bullshit? Do you believe in Santa Claus?

"do you ever wonder whether Clinton should have just said 'fuck it' and sent a sizeable force over to Rwanda?"

No.

"At what point are we less moral for our inaction than for our actions?"

Again this why we should work within the framework of international law (and if international law is weak we should strengthen it rather than attempt to undermine it.) Any question that pre-suppose that "we" take a unique leading role in these actions is automatically a faulty one.

if international law is weak we should strengthen it rather than attempt to undermine it.

Ho Ho Ho!

lol at "3 days of bombing"

my contention is not that wars are never worth fighting, but that no war should be called "just". that word

a) reinforces an undifferentiated us/them mentality (we always say that OUR part in the war is just, not THEIR part)

b) excludes all the small, unremarked, absolutely fucked up shit that happens in any war, things that destroy entire lives and familes and minds and traditions

c) perpetuates the idea that there is some noble core to war, an eden of carnage where intentions are pure and the forces of righteousness are on your side as you slay

what word would you prefer be used for times when we need to do something

whats lol @ 3 days of bombing

^^^what Tracer said

I think the key problem with the "Bush doctrine" is that it was a thinly veiled justification for playing out Dubya's wish-fulfillment daddy issue psychodrama on the world stage Project for the New American Century's plans to recreate the US as a hegemon again and as such should not be taken seriously on any level.

d) morale is for pussies

Who do you mean when you say "we", deej?

well that depends on context doesnt it - i thought we (you and i) were speaking in the abstract

I don't think war really exists on an abstract level.

a just war might, on an abstract level

I don't think war really exists on an abstract level.

― Alex in SF, Friday, November 14, 2008 6:13 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ok, 'we' in the case of bosnia = nato, u.s. + allies - i.e. ppl who could do something to stop it

our experience in bosnia was pretty much the basis for the re-hawkification of democrats because it was a situation where folks thought we were gonna be dragged into a giant genocidal mess and instead a more or less best case scenario worked itself out

Then it was definitely a bad idea haha.

I was under the impression we bombed for a lot longer than three days btw. Where are you getting that number?

haha yeah i originally meant to bring that up - one of the things about human perspective is that you never really know in the macro how successful a decision to go to war is going to be - obviously anyone who knew shit looking at the war in iraq thought it was dumb, so thats not as good an example, but you never know whats going to happen in that larger sense

it was more like 20 days apparently, i pulled 3 days out of my ass bcuz i knew it was not a long extended campaign

Should also mention that just because the former Yugoslavian states are nominally at peace right now does not mean that they will be next week, next year, etc. . . Intervention does not necessarily solve the underlying issues at work in these conflicts.

I heartily recommend Samantha Power's A Problem From Hell.

Are you sure it wasn't closer to three months?

i dont think you can draw any long-term lessons about 'this will go like this because it worked like this in the past' - if anything its proven that its impossible to accurately predict human behavior in these situations when there are so many variables involved

that said in this case i think its undeniable, considering the level of the atrocities that occurred, that purely in this area Nato's involvement was "a good thing" - of course if dems and moderates took the wrong lesson from it, it might have had significant repercussions going forward

The operation was carried out between 30 August and 20 September 1995, involving 400 aircraft and 5000 personnel from 15 nations.

I am confusing Kosovo and Bosnia. My bad.

I don't Bosnia and Iraq are comparable frankly.

This is a very old question, of course, but I guess it might speed up the answer if we put it to the forum.

I don't (think?) Bosnia and Iraq are comparable frankly.

wtf? they are practically analograms!

Is that even a word?

the american and spanish civil wars were both justified

its like a candy gram but its a butthole

xpost

Tracer, is there any word you would use besides "just" that avoids those traps of black-and-white thinking while still communicating that there are moral considerations as well as pragmatic self-interest supporting the decision to go to war? I see your concern but I am not sure if you can or should make that decision without buying into an "us/them" mentality.

is there such thing as a just state? a just person?

Are you in search of a just war or a pretty one?

― Kerm, Friday, November 14, 2008 5:59 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

o dam

"do you ever wonder whether Clinton should have just said 'fuck it' and sent a sizeable force over to Rwanda?"

No.

"At what point are we less moral for our inaction than for our actions?"

Again this why we should work within the framework of international law (and if international law is weak we should strengthen it rather than attempt to undermine it.) Any question that pre-suppose that "we" take a unique leading role in these actions is automatically a faulty one.

― Alex in SF, Friday, November 14, 2008 7:02 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark

man we woulda OWNED that rwanda sitch if clinton had walked the walk, who gives a dick about international law

^^^ voice of reason

The criteria for a just war are more usually in this vein (or were when I was younger and paid attention to such things) - (grabbed from some website, obv)

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.

So, whether or not a war can be just, the last couple of points probably make it clear that no war has been just.

I think there's a lot of difference between saying that a war is morally excusable as the lesser of two evils and calling it 'just'.

I just like the idea that ethics even exist outside of individual decisions made in discrete sets of circumstances, like you can take going to war or participating in war and make meaningful bones about it. I will enjoy watching the remnants of all this ecclesiastical nonsense (the very phrase "just war" strikes me as pathetically narcissistic) disposed of, whenever it eventually happens. Bring on the actual Enlightenment already.

If a hopeless guerrilla insurgency is incapable of being just I'm not sure I give a shit about justness.

let's ask what the fucking catholics have to say about the moral agency of the guerillas!!! it's some RELEVANT SHIT

Except that it's not any Freudian nonsense like that. Guys like Cheney and Perle had more to with it than Bush.

i agree that "avenging his daddy" or whatever is reductive but there's a lot of evidence bush jr. came to office with a serious hankering to take out saddam, for whatever reason — according to paul o'neill he had ppl drawing up plans for "post-invasion iraq" only a month after his inauguration.

so suspicious and weird cuz we'd only been patrolling their airspace and enforcing sanctions for like a decade.

just war theory more like war justification theory amirite

lonely guy just war theorizing baout things

the philosophers weigh in:

guys neocons were pushing iraq war thruout clinton's presidency

when ppl give the bush freudian theory i think they're just being funny usually or 'wouldnt it be scary if that is true?' and concluding its a toss up that this was a contributing factor

facts were that neocons were mad his dad never went after hussein

I think a framework for just assassinations needs to be drawn up before you can tackle just wars.
Start from the bottom and work your way up.

the neocons' fixation with iraq wouldn't have meant shit if bush himself hadn't been determined to do it.

otm, but i think they helped forge his determination

yeah gabb otm thats what i mean - his determination came out of a context where there were a bunch of hawks eager to push this sort of thing