Among conservatives and liberals alike, we love war. Well, actually, we love winning war. War heroes are praised with celebrity. Great victories are glorified in textbooks. Sweeping successes in combat are taught as inspirational life lessons. The great Roman victories over Hannibal delight our imagination. The surprising and total British triumph over Napoleon at Waterloo is studied with captivating inspiration. And many of us still enjoy re-watching the victory of D-Day in films like Saving Private Ryan as we cheer on our team.
In many ways, the love of military victory is comparable to our love of the sports team dominating the field. It is a powerful element of human psyche to cheer for our team, whether it’s the soccer team our boys are on, our high school basketball team, our college football team, or the United States military (I suggest some of the potential dangers of such modes of thinking in this post). We love the crushing defeat of our enemies.
And that is not to say that all these battles do not merit our study or inspiration. I am simply demonstrating the powerful effect that military prowess and victory has on our psyche.
Sometimes (and often), this effect results in cheers for acts that are less than virtuous, to speak in understatement, or downright deplorable. Or in the least, we make excuses when our side does it. For example, there is no shortage of moral indignation against the German blitz of London, which, over fifty-seven days, left 30,000 dead. But we shrug a bit at the American fire-bombing of the German city of Dresden, an entirely non-military city, which killed 25,000 in a single night, or the American bombing of Tokyo on March 9, 1945, which killed 80-100,000 civilians. “Well, those were necessary,” comes the ready excuse.
Of course, anything is excused by those who take part in war. It has always been so. The British hunger blockade of Germany in World War I led to the starvation of anywhere from 250,000 to 600,000 German civilians. And yet, Woodrow Wilson refused the German plea to pressure the British to end the blockade, which was a violation of international rules of war and had prompted the merciless German u-boat attacks on enemy and neutral vessels.
Okay, enough of all this introductory rambling, lest I go on forever. Now, to the point: Just War Theory.
Many will simply dismiss Just War Theory as impractical or illogical. But why? If rejected, what are the implications? I raise these questions first so that as you read through the tenets of Just War Theory, you might consider the moral or ethical implications of deciding on a less “rigid” justification for war or action in war.
First, a very brief history of Just War Theory. Originally developed under Saint Augustine, the formalization of the theory was completed officially in Saint Thomas Aquinas’ comprehensive volume, Summa Theologica (1485). Drawing on various elements of Augustine’s theological interpretations, bits and pieces of Roman Law (ironically), and his own study of Scripture and reason, Aquinas lays out a list of conditions for both jus ad bellum – what constitutes a just war – and jus in bello – what constitutes just action in the act of war. (Note that different sources will offer slightly different criteria, but they are all holistically similar.)
Jus ad bellum … What constitutes a just cause for war?
- Last Resort: A war may only be waged after all peaceful options have been considered, tried and exhausted.
- Legitimate Authority: War may only be waged by a legitimate authority or government.
- Just Cause: War must be waged for a just cause, which according to Just War Theory, is a response to wrongs suffered. In other words, war must be waged in self-defense, not offense. This, of course, rules out preemptive war.
- Probability of Success: War must be waged only if, upon reasonable observation, there is a strong likelihood of success.
Jus in bello … What constitutes just action in war?
- Right Intention: Related very much to #3: War must be fought with the primary objective of reestablishing peace with the least amount of force necessary. Once peace is re-established, further aggressive action against the initial aggressor is not allowed.
- Proportionality: The violence used in war must be directly proportional to casualties suffered. For example, if one nation is attached, retaliation must not exceed the extent of the original aggression. Only the amount of force absolutely necessary may be used.
- Civilian Casualties: All efforts must be taken to avoid civilian deaths, and these deaths must be absolutely unavoidable and accidental when pursuing all other criteria of Just War Theory. Certainly, no direct targeting of civilians is justified.
Of course, many of you reading this will think this a delightful fantasy of some other world. After all, following such criteria would rule out nearly every war engaged in by the United States for the violation of one item or another. Some of them are still rather subjective. Was there a strong likelihood of success when the 13 American colonies rebelled in 1776? Probably not. What constitutes a legitimate authority? This, of course, is extremely open to debate.
Nevertheless, the criteria for Just War ought to be considered and pondered. If you decide that any of these criteria ought to be relaxed or removed from the list, then why? As I ask my students, if this list does not satisfy, then what list would propose and how would you justify it? And I urge caution with this. For example, was the fire-bombing of Dresden, a deliberate targeting of civilians (not to mention Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki), justified because our team did it? If not, and if excuses are made for our military, then what justifies different standards for us versus them? Are there limits in warfare? Do the ends justify the means?
In a culture that tends to delight in crushing military victories (after all, what cultures don’t?) and a nation engaged in nearly continuous warfare of one sort or another for decades, should we not at least consider the Just War Theory and what the implications of not following such a theory might be? Sadly, we often just take the word of those who go to war (and, I might add, profit from it) that war is necessary. Is it so unreasonable to suggest that we might give such decisions a great deal of scrutiny before accepting them all as justified?
Thumbnail image credit goes to thoughtco.com.
