- 2,260
- N. Jessamine, KY
- JMoney-689
- Woodside689
I wrote this paper last spring on the justification or warfare for my English class, and thought I would share it here. It should spawn some good debate.
The Endless Debate: The Justification of Warfare
Whenever a nation goes to war, that nation’s population is naturally split into two groups: those in support of the war, and those against the war. Warfare is a unique issue, especially in modern times. Those who are against the war usually take their position because they believe that the war is unjust. The pro-peace, anti-war group believes that the nation’s motives for going to war are not worth bloodshed, and part of this group, the pacifists, believe that all wars should be avoided, regardless of the consequences of not fighting. All opinions on warfare falls into one of three categories: pacifist, just-war, or realist. A pacifist believes strictly in peace, a just-war theorist believes that some warfare can be just, and a realist believes that all is fair in war.
In the past fifteen years, the United States used military force in four different conflicts around the world: Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Each of these conflicts were questioned and debated by both America’s public and the people of the world. America also looked to enter the Syrian Civil War, but ended up deciding against involvement. In no other time period has the United States, the world’s sole superpower and often dubbed, “the world police,” been involved in that number of conflicts. Due to the innately controversial nature of war, the debate is arguably more important now than ever before. In truth, not all wars are evil; warfare can be justified.
Being a lead voice in the warfare debate in the United States, the Christian majority usually takes the side of the “just war” theorists. Described in the Christian Bible is God’s frequent support of (and, at times, indifference to) the Israelite army. At one point in the Old Testament, God kept the sun from setting so that a battle could continue to be fought in daylight, allowing his people to have victory (Joshua 10). After the Israelites, led by Joshua, marched around the city of Jericho seven times, God destroyed the city (Joshua 6). Occurrences such as these tend to support pro-war sentiment felt by modern Christians. Throughout history, Christians tended to side with just war theorists. As Joe Boyle of BBC News states, “The idea [just war theory] later became bound up with Christianity. From St Augustine to Thomas Aquinas, religious figures developed a theory of war as a tool of politics to be used to preserve peace, justice and order.” Recently, however, a few Christians have accepted the pacifist perspective on warfare (Gibson, 1). These Christians read the teachings of Jesus Christ in the gospels and interpret him as a pacifist-- against conflict. When Jesus was arrested by the Romans before being crucified, one of his disciples cut the ear off a Roman soldier with his sword. Jesus responded by healing the man’s ear just by touching it to his head. Christians, as well as those of other faiths, have vied for the fair treatment of noncombatants and POWs (prisoners of war) as an expression of sympathy for thousands of years.
A widely accepted opinion between just war theorists states that, in a traditional war, the aggressor fights on unjust grounds while the defender has the right to fight back and save itself from destruction. Such is certainly true in the case of the War of 1812. Because of various harassments by the British such the impressment of American sailors by the British Navy as well as trade restrictions on the Mississippi River and the Atlantic Ocean, the United States was rightfully obliged to challenge its old mother country to a fight by invading Britain’s northern territory, Canada. Following the declaration of war, Britain immediately invaded the United States, successfully capturing various northern states. Eventually, the Americans were able to push back the British and win the war, which legitimized the U.S. as an independent nation. Despite these results, the war is not celebrated as the Civil and Revolutionary wars are in modern times. Jay Newton-Small of TIME states, “So why the relative lack of enthusiasm about 1812? Maybe because the U.S. is now best friends with the aggressor, Great Britain.” The war damaged the reputation of the British Empire due to its loss and the fact that the war was fought on highly unjust grounds by the British. The Americans were not free of blame—after all, they did try to annex parts of Canada, but the U.S. had just cause to do so. The Treaty of Ghent, ending the war, guaranteed America the rights of an independent, legitimate nation. Both sides believed that their cause for war was justified.
A just war that occurred in more recent history was the second U.S. invasion of Iraq. After receiving intelligence that caused President George W. Bush to believe Saddam Hussein, Iraq’s longtime dictator, had possession of WMDs (weapons of mass destruction, ranging from biological agents to nuclear ICBMs), an attack was ordered on Saddam Hussein’s forces, just as Bush’s father had done thirteen years prior in the Gulf War. Unlike the war in Afghanistan, the Iraq conflict was met with far less public support, especially after it was discovered that Hussein did not possess WMDs. Hussein was later captured and executed on December 29th, 2006 (Alfano 1). Liberals, such as former President Jimmy Carter, accused the Bush Administration of violating international law by attacking Iraq. Carter states, “I became thoroughly familiar with the principles of a just war, and it is clear that a substantially unilateral attack on Iraq does not meet these standards” (Carter 1). The Iraq conflict’s unpopularity in its latter stages, as well as Bush’s weak response to Hurricane Katrina, led to his political downfall. The Iraq war, is, however, just due to the reason the U.S. entered the war: to protect the Iraqi people from their deranged leader. The war was a noble sacrifice made by the U.S. military, a sacrifice for Iraq’s innocents as well as anyone under the threat of terrorism.
Despite the characterization of Bush as a war monger, neither war in the middle east was as questionable or unjust as the minor conflicts the Democratic presidents preceding and succeeding Bush were drawn into by America’s allies in the NATO. Despite President Clinton’s interest in the Kosovo war, it did not pose any threat to the west. However, the west decided to intervene anyway in the form of bombing runs which resulted in the killing of both militants and civilians. Later during Barack Obama’s first term as U.S. President, the Arab Spring caused several uprisings, revolutions, and civil wars in various Arab countries. One war in Libya caused the NATO, led by the U.S. Air Force, to bomb Libyan dictator Muammar Ghaddafi’s forces in the capital. Attacking the Libyan government’s troops violated the U.S. Constitution, as Congress did not authorize a war to be initiated. Former New Jersey judge Andrew P. Napolitano states, “When President Obama announced last April that he was sending the United States military to bomb Libya, he not only violated the United States Constitution, which he has taken an oath to uphold, but he also violated the moral principles of the just war.” The result of the air strikes was a victory for the rebels. The war itself was just, as the Libyan people had good reasons for revolting against their murderous dictator; however, the U.S. involvement in the war was unjust because the war did not threaten the U.S. government, or its people. It was not in the United States’ best interest to join the fight, and thus, its involvement is not justifiable. Both of these conflicts and the U.S. response to them were similar; neither can be justified.
Possibly the most controversial act of justified war ever committed was the atomic bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by American bombers, which ended World War II after the surrender of the Emperor. The radiation caused by the bombs (the effects of which had been unknown before the bombing) caused the areas around the blasts to be uninhabitable for decades afterward. The bombs were dropped as an alternate ending to the war to avoid the millions of casualties a full-scale invasion would cause. Years before Hitler’s Germany invaded Austria, Japan invaded mainland China in a type of prelude to World War II. During the war, Japanese troops successfully took the Chinese city of Nanking, and proceeded to commit what is often considered the worst massacre and war rape in recent history. (Lanouette 1) Thousands of Chinese civilians were executed at the hands of the Japanese Army. Civilian women of all ages were raped, forced to watch their husband’s execution, and were then killed themselves. The Japanese people praised these acts of war. (Chen 1) An article was published in a Japanese newspaper describing a contest between two Japanese soldiers to see which could kill the most Chinese prisoners. The Japanese, at the time of the war, were as close to inhumanity as a nation can be, even less humane than the Nazi Germans, who, ironically, tried to rescue Chinese civilians in Nanking.
The Japanese population could hardly be called “civilian” however; if the U.S. had attempted a conventional ground invasion of the four mainland Japanese islands (it had prepared to do so by relocated veterans of the European theater to the Pacific before the bombs were developed), it is likely that all able-bodied Japanese would be forced to fight. In that case, the Japanese civilians would become a threat, and have the capability to kill, which, according to LTC Pete Kilner of the U.S. Army, would forfeit their right to not be killed. Kilner states, “Our starting point in justifying wartime killing is the conviction that every person possesses the “right not to be killed. If a person intentionally threatens to violate the right of someone who possesses their right, he forfeits his own right.” Kamikaze fighters, Japanese pilots who believed that death was “honorable”, flew their planes into U.S. ships whenever they ran out of ammunition. The brainwashed, fanatical Japanese civilians often committed suicide whenever U.S. forces took over Pacific islands. An invasion of mainland Japan was estimated, at the time, to cause millions of deaths, compared to the several hundred thousands the bombs would—and that’s not to mention that the bombs would cause zero American casualties. Because the Emperor surrendered after the bombings, the atomic bombs did Japan a favor, and were therefore justified. America would proceed to rewrite Japan’s government and help it become an economic superpower in the years following, and to this day several thousand U.S. military personal are stationed in Japan to defend it.
A similar argument can be made to justify the use of obliteration bombing during the Second World War by both the Axis and the Allies. During World War II, the primary belligerents were in a state of total warfare. Almost all of each nation’s factories, previously building cars and other machinery, were converted by the nations’ governments to build tanks, fighter planes, and other military equipment. Civilians living near the factories were workers at them, building planes that would later be used to bomb their nation’s enemies. If that nation’s enemy were to bomb the factory and/or the living areas of the civilian factory workers, it will keep itself safe from future attacks. Without civilians to build weapons, aggression with those weapons will not occur. Practices as these were used by both the Allies, who were commonly considered “good”, and the Axis, who were commonly considered “evil”, in cities such as London and Dresden. Most would argue that these bombings were unjust, unlike the Allies’ war as a whole which is considered just (Thomas 1). However, any civilian who is involved in the war effort should be seen as a valid target. The truly innocent civilians are either opposed to the war, or are living in a noncombatant nation. A nation should have the right to defend itself by any means, which include killing the makers of weapons that will be used against it.
In contrast, other wars were originally fought for just reasons, but due to the methods of fighting and the war’s resolve, the war became unjust. A clear example for a war becoming unjust is the Vietnam War, on the part of the Americans. Howard Zinn, writing in the December 2001 issue of The Progressive, stated, “I believe that the progressive supporters of the war have confused a "just cause" with a "just war,” but it does not follow that going to war on behalf of that cause, with the inevitable mayhem that follows, is just.” (Zinn 1) America’s reasons for invading Vietnam were, at first, pure: to save it from the wrath of communism. The war only became a problem after too many men had been sent to the war only to die. The decision to implement the draft only made matters worse. While the war is popularly blamed on Lyndon Johnson, it was Dwight Eisenhower who sent the first Americans into the jungle, but at that time, for noble causes.
Other wars, however, cannot be justified. World War I is an example commonly used by pacifists to argue that wars are pointless, and thus, unjust. The Great War erupted after the assassination of Austria-Hungary’s Archduke Franz Ferdinand by Serb rebels, who were unaffiliated with the Allied powers. Tensions between the Central Powers, being Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire, and the Allies, being Britain, France, and Russia, had been at an all-time high. Once the war, sparked by a simple assassination, erupted, the equally-armed powers were shortly stuck in a deadlock, resulting in the use of trench warfare. The United States only entered the war after the Zimmerman telegram was intercepted; a message from the German Foreign Minister to Mexico, urging it to attack the American Southwest and regain land lost after the Mexican-American War. President Woodrow Wilson soon sent the small army of the United States to Europe. With the added American support, the Allies were able to break the deadlock and defeat Germany. The empires of Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottomans, and Russia fell during the war, the latter due to an internal revolution. Neither the reasons for the war’s start, or the type of weaponry used during the war (such as mustard gas, a chemical weapon), can be justified. World War I fails both the requirement for just cause for war, as well as justice in warfare, outlined as “Jus ad Bellum” and “Jus in bello” respectively in Brian Orend’s entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for war. The Great War is further unjust due to the lack of just cause in the beginning of the war, which is a requirement of just warfare.
In 1919, Germany was forced to sign the Treaty of Versailles, officially ending the war in an unjust way. The treaty stated that Germany accept all guilt for the lives lost during the war, cede territory to bordering nations, and pay war reparations for the damage caused (despite the fact that post-war Germany had little money to offer). The treaty inaccurately blamed Germany for the horrifying conflict. By 1939, Germany had a new leader and was stronger than any other European nation, and was ready to fight World War II. If the Allies had been fair to the Central Powers after the armistice, Europe could have avoided another conflict. The First World War, or “the war to end all wars,” was unjust because of the lack of reasons for it to start, and the treatment of the losers. Michael Brenner of The Huffington Post, summarizing theologian Thomas Aquias’ criteria for just warfare, states, “First, war must occur for a good and just purpose rather than for self-gain (simply because it is "in the nation's interest") or as an exercise of power to affirm dominance. Second, just war must be waged by a properly instituted authority -- a legitimate state. By implication, that principle today covers procedures that that makes purposes and justifications clear and explicit. Third, peace must be a central motive even in the midst of violence, i.e. war is an abomination for mankind that is permissible only as a last resort where diplomacy and other pacific means (dialogue and negotiation) have failed. Fourth, self-defense must be the motive and the conjectured war must not be more destructive than the alternative in terms of spilling blood, above all.” World War I, as a whole, fails three of these four standards.
Pointless war is always unjustifiable, as shown in World War I. There were minute or nonexistent reasons for the empires of Europe to fight each other resulting in the deaths of over ten million people. Even more unjustified is the treaty that ended the war, the treaty that caused Germany to fall into fascism. But unlike the Great War, other wars have valid reasons for the fight to occur. World War II is the best example of a justifiable war; the Allies had to fight back against Germany and Japan in order to save Europe and East Asia. Wars always begin for reasons, but the reasons have to be good for the resulting conflict to be considered “just”.
There can always be good reasons for a fight to occur, whether it is the simple good versus evil fight in as in World War II, or the act of keeping a nation united and ending slavery as in the American Civil War. Just because death occurs does not mean that conflict cannot be justified. Conflict between nations will not be an event that disappears into the history books; war will always occur, and war is inevitable. The world must learn what constitutes a just war, and what causes unjustified wars to occur so that such wars can be avoided. Then all organized conflict between nations will be righteous. Then there will be true peace.
Works Cited
Alfano, Sean. “Saddam Hussein Executed” CBSNews.com. CBS/AP, 29 December, 2006. Web.
18 April 2014. <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/saddam-hussein-executed/>.
Boyle, Joe. "Just war: From Augustine to Obama." bbc.com. BBC News, 24 May 2013. Web. 27
Mar 2014. <http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22653473>.
Brenner, Michael. ""Just War" or Just War?" Huffingtonpost.com. The Huffington Post, 5 Jun
2012. Web. 28 Mar 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-brenner/just-war-theory-foreign- policy_b_1570546.html>.
Carter, Jimmy. “Just War – or just a war?” The New York Times. 9 March 2003. Web. 27 March
2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/09/opinion/just-war-or-a-just-war.html>.
Chen, David W. “At the Rape of Nanking: A Nazi Who Saved Lives” The New York Times, 12
December 1996. Web. 14 May 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/12/world/at-the-rape-of- nanking-a-nazi-who-saved-lives.html>.
Gibson, David. "Is 'Just War' doctrine another victim of the Syrian conflict?” Religion News
Service. RNS, 11 Sep 2013. Web. 28 Mar 2014.<http://www.religionnews.com/2013/
09/11/analysis-is-just-war-doctrine-another-victim-of-the-syrian-conflict/>.
Kilner, Pete. “A moral justification for killing in war.” Academia.edu. February 1, 2010. Web.
March 28, 2014. <http://www.academia.edu/4947171/A_moral justification for killing in_war>.
Lanouette, William. “Reason and Circumstances for the Hiroshima Bomb”
Thenuclearworld.org. 25 February 2011. Web. 13 May 2014. <http://thenuclearworld.org
/2011/02/25/reason-and-circumstances-of-the-hiroshima-bomb/>.
Napolitano, Andrew. “What is a Just War?” Antiwar.com. 2 February 2012. Web. 27 March
2014. <http://original.antiwar.com/andrew-pnapolitano/2012/02/01/what-is-a-just-war/>.
Newton-Small, Jay. “1812: The War No One Wants to Commemorate” Time.com. Ti Magazine, 24 April 2014. Web. 14 May 2014. <http://time.com/76284/1812-war- commemorate-washington/>.
Orend, Brian. “War” Stanford University. 28 July 2005. Web. 27 March 2014.
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/>.
Thomas, Shannon. "What is 'Just War' today?" Americancatholic.org. May 2004. Web. 27
March, 2014. <http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac0504.asp>.
Zinn, Howard. “A Just Cause, not a Just War” Commondreams.org. December 2001. Web. 8
May 2014. http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1109-01.htm.
