Do our current war(s) fit your understanding of "Just War?"

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Mon, 25 May 2015 09:43:48 -0400

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?

Response by COL Vincent Stoneking made May 25 at 2015 9:50 AM

COL Vincent Stoneking — Mon, 25 May 2015 09:50:57 -0400

A fair application of Roman Catholic Just War theory would say that our current wars aren't. But I'm OK with that.

As you say, it depends on how you define "just." I use the Roman Catholic theory as my baseline because it is the most generally recognized one, and the one I know best...

Your list omits the comparative justice criteria of Jus Ad Bellum (for the Roman Catholic Church, it Jus Ad Bellum refers to the conditions that must exist for a just war to be begun), for instance. Your list also omits "right intention" (which basically states that a war cannot be for gain). Your list adds "Exit Strategy" as a criteria.

Using the Roman Catholic Just War theory, very few - if any - wars have been "just." Reason being that they almost all violate the criteria of "last resort." You can always state that one more diplomatic strategy can be tried. Most wars would fail on the strict standard of "Just Cause" which considers most political factors to be insufficient. By a strict interpretation, the only just causes would be actual self-defense or protection of lives in immanent danger... The combination of these two factors pretty much mean that a war can be "just" for side A if - and only if - it is "unjust" for side B. (and that's before we consider sides C,D, E, and F...)

Macro Proportionality (whether the potential gains of the war are sufficient to offset the evils of war - this is what is meant by proportionality in the Jus Ad Bellum sense - and is distinct from the proportionality IN war that we normally focus on in the military) is inherently an iffy proposition. It requires near certainty in the prediction of uncertain events.

Importantly, the bias for historical Just War theory development was that wars would be waged between recognized polities. Just war theory has little to say about non-state actors, other than they can't declare a war because they are not competent authorities. It gives us little to go on when dealing with this entity that isn't a recognized polity. (The recognized polity ALSO needs to be a "just" polity, but that is another can of worms)

While Just War theory is a useful lense to view issues through, I do not consider it normative or prescriptive in itself. I come at these issues with a strong realist viewpoint and find myself sharing Clausewitz's view that war is continuation of policy[1] by other means. We should attempt to be as "just" as possible in going to war and waging the same, but enduring national interests must be our foundation for such decisions.

I think it is fair to say, as both Clausewitz and Jomini (to a much lesser extent) pointed out, the CHARACTER (as opposed to the nature) or a war can change throughout the conduct of a war. This is pretty much a given once war is seen as an extension of policy. When leaders change policies, for whatever reason, the results they want/need from a war will change. Additionally, that pesky enemy will have an influence both on military outcomes and policy/politics of "Side A".

A special word (of contempt) for the inclusion of "Exit Strategy" on a list of just war criteria. Whatever the intent of such inclusions, this is a VERY recent development, and a very bad one. In practice, it sets an expiration date on military action (There can be other definitions of exit strategy, but let's be honest and admit that in the public mind "exit strategy" means WHEN the war will be over). This is objectively bad for one's chances of success. It tells an opponent very clearly that all they have to do to win is to SURVIVE for a while. A war's merits should NOT be weighed on "how fast it will be over" but on "if it is necessary/worthwhile." When it comes to public-facing statements, one's "exit strategy" for a war should be "We will achieve our aims and then we will be done." There should separately BE conflict termination planning, but that should NOT be part of the justification for going to war or not. And it should not be disclosed to those without a valid need to know.

Yes, I just committed heresy against the received wisdom of the Powell/Weinberger doctrine.

[1] Interesting tidbit. He actually used a word that can mean both "policy" and "politics", which made a lot of sense given that democratic republics were not the norm when he was writing. At the time, there was much less distinction between the two ideas than we currently perceive.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made May 25 at 2015 10:05 AM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Mon, 25 May 2015 10:05:39 -0400

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.

Response by CPT Aaron Kletzing made May 25 at 2015 10:11 AM

CPT Aaron Kletzing — Mon, 25 May 2015 10:11:53 -0400

"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.

Response by SrA Daniel Hunter made May 25 at 2015 10:48 AM

SrA Daniel Hunter — Mon, 25 May 2015 10:48:43 -0400

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