I’ve grown up hearing about the consequences of war. S**t happens, apparently, and we’re supposed to accept it as part of the package. Concepts like “collateral damage” come up a lot whenever war gets discussed, and they get blown off. I’m not satisfied with that, though. I think casual acceptance, especially on a societal scale, of things like collateral damage are exactly why wars are not, and cannot be, just. It’s never really just war, is it?
Part of my problem with Just War theory comes from what I see as a fundamental contradiction in “rules.” Just War theory mandates that states only enter into war if they feel they have a reasonable “chance of success.” Now that might sound fine on paper, but when examined in a more pragmatic light (and that’s what Just War theory is supposedly all about, being “realistic” about conflict) it confounds everything. Cases like the current Iraq War, the one in Afghanistan, even our own Revolutionary War come up and cause some issues. The common thread among that list is of course, invasions, specifically those by a much larger, better-equipped military power of a rather less-disciplined, poorly-equipped one. In the case of an invasion, the power being invaded doesn’t have much of a choice about War. Practically speaking, too, they are not merely going to acquiesce their land and control. So what happens to the “chance of success” criterion? Well, other crucial criteria are bent to improve the “chances of success” as high as possible, and this crucially alters how the war is fought. Weaker military forces are, out of necessity, forced to fight in urban areas using guerilla tactics. This somewhat evens the strategic field, perhaps, but it also means that more civilians will be involved, more infrastructure will be damaged, attacks by both sides will be unexpected, essentially: the crucial tenet of “proportionality” goes out the window. With this inherent conflict within the theory, Just War as a philosophy significantly invalidates itself.
What do all of these complexities and interrelations mean? I think they mean we ought to recognize that Just war is never only war, that it means civilian deaths, that it means destruction of “everything that makes life livable” (Living and Dying in Iraq: Killing Talk and the Limits of Just War, Cornell, p. 1) including infrastructure, food, communications, and healthcare. It should also be openly recognized and condemned; that it means a few people, who are physically (and therefore further emotionally) removed from the conflict, are going to make a lot of money. As mentioned in Eugene Jarecki’s Why We Fight, “when war becomes this profitable, you’re going to see a lot more of it.” Recognizing all of this, understanding how we have been traditionally duped into overlooking or accepting all of these consequences, I hope, will encourage us to foster more Politically Engaged Pacifism (Allman, p. 67) and together, work towards an end of war.
I think you found a good criticism of Just War Theory. Once “rules” have been put into place by some power, it is easy for many to believe them as right and support them without a second thought. The mandate of only entering war if you have a reasonable “chance of success” is a troubling one if you think about it more deeply, as you have. For me, the case of the invasion of Afghanistan springs to mind for more than one reason. It was obvious that our military was more advanced, our government more stable and supportive of invading that that our chances of success were looking good. But in that, I struggle with our “right intention” and using this as a “last resort”. Wasn’t this a war or attack on terror? Didn’t we end up attacking Afghanistan’s structures and citizens too? It was obvious that we had a superior military and the Afghanis had no real chance. Now terror on the other hand, did we have a “chance of success” against that? I think not. You can take out some terrorist leaders, but people who believe strongly enough to strap bombs to their chest will do it without a leader to spread the terror and whatever they believe is right.
I support your challenge of the Just War Theory and the “rules” that make war okay or right. War is a confusing event, often with multiple actors and pressure from many sides and I think you need more than a couple rules to really decide whether war can be just. It is much more complex.
I agree, the criteria of Just war are difficult if not impossible to objectively define for most situations. Even if they could be defined, all the criteria of Just war are not often met at once. The justification of war by policymakers requires a combination of emphasizing the few criteria that are met and downplaying or ignoring the real effects of war as you describe them above.
It seems that there is no such thing as a Just war in reality, that it is an ideal difficult to define and even more difficult to achieve. Does this mean that no state should ever go to war? For example, in a situation of extreme oppression in which all non-violent methods and efforts of negotiation on the part of the oppressed fail, would it be better for them to let the oppression continue or to revolt, which is essentially an act of war? Should states use military intervention for cases of genocide in which those committing the genocide refuse to negotiate?
Very intriguing Alex. I had never thought of it as “Just,” as in “only War, I’ve always been so caught up with the definition of “Just,” as in honorable and morally right. It’s really fascinating comparing these two forms of Just War. One theory makes the claim that we’ll take every necessary step to prevent war, there must be a chance of success, and we’ll only take necessary steps in attaining victory once a war has started (proportionality), etc. The other complicates those claims by bringing to the surface the fact that so many motives for going to war can exist under the surface that we, as ordinary citizens are unaware of. There are many reasons a country might go to war other than the ones described by Just War Theory that could be masked by reason that the citizens of a country might find more noble or acceptable (whether or not the reasons the country gives are true or not is another matter).
It’s also intriguing to think about Just War Theory from the perspective of an invaded state that doesn’t really have a choice in whether or not they should get involved in war. It is thrust upon them, and they must deal with the task of defending themselves from the invading force. I also appreciate that you bring up the American Revolution. The similar use of guerrilla tactics and urban areas intrigues me. I’d be curious to know the civilian death rates during the Revolutionary War, and the infrastructure damage involved. I understand that the warfare was very different then, which would cause vastly different results from what we see today. Just something of interest to me personally.
The final thing I appreciate is the idea that Just War invalidates itself. The fact that a select few who have no physical or emotional involvement in the war are profiting immensely is horrible. I hope, as you do, that understanding these things, and dealing with them instead of simply accepting the idea of societal acceptance of collateral damage and the fact that “S**t Happens” will allow us to eliminate war completely.