On Just Wars
Published in der Tagesspiegel
(Germany) on 13 December 2009
by Juliane Schäuble (link to original)
Ever since St. Augustine in the 5th century, philosophers have wrestled with the concept of a just war. How can we morally limit war? What are its causes, methods, and proliferation?
A War President as Nobel Peace Laureate
Many found the Oslo jury’s decision hard to comprehend. Obama realized that, and last Thursday he responded in his own way, a uniquely American way, by giving a justification for his military actions publicly, to his own nation, and to the rest of the world. In doing so, he resorted to the centuries-old definition of a “just war” as it was recently described by author Michael Walzer in his book, “Just and Unjust Wars.” In order for a war to be considered justified it has to be fought as a last resort or in response to outside attack; methods used must be proportional and civilians must be protected.
The term “just war” is ambiguous at best, and many since St. Augustine in the 5th century have attempted to set moral limits on war, whether concerning the causes, prosecution, or proliferation of it. The fact that the theories that emerged were at times misused in no way invalidates them. The dissenters' advantage lies in the fact that the various applications of military action were made measurable in retrospect. Adherents to the theories believed that certain rules always applied, even in war.
George W. Bush’s attempt to justify his invasion of Iraq in 2003 was vehemently contradicted by intellectuals like Walzer at the time. Invasion with the objective of regime change was not a just war. Jimmy Carter, another American Nobel Peace Laureate, made the same argument: an essentially unilateral attack on Iraq did not fulfill the conditions for being termed a just war. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called it a war of choice.
Six years later, the debate has flared up once more in the USA, albeit this time over a different war: Afghanistan. Ever since Obama announced a troop surge there, the question has come up as to whether it is still a just war. In his article featured by “Dissent” magazine, Walzer does not exclude the possibility that the war is just, but says he has his doubts. He expresses doubt not because the original justification of self-defense was false (toppling the Taliban was a direct response to 9/11, and they had been granted safe haven in Afghanistan), but because, due to George W. Bush’s malfeasance, more troops than the U.S. wanted to provide are now necessary to complete the mission. On the other hand, the failures of the past are a good reason for supporting Obama’s actions to remedy them. After eight years, the Afghans deserve to keep their newly granted freedoms; the only question now is whether that is being accomplished in a just manner.
The Afghanistan situation demonstrates the difficulty in translating theory into practice, and Obama realizes that. In his Oslo speech, he admitted “that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy.” He did not start the war in Afghanistan, but he must bring it to a conclusion, and he must do it in as just a manner as possible.
A War President as Nobel Peace Laureate
Many found the Oslo jury’s decision hard to comprehend. Obama realized that, and last Thursday he responded in his own way, a uniquely American way, by giving a justification for his military actions publicly, to his own nation, and to the rest of the world. In doing so, he resorted to the centuries-old definition of a “just war” as it was recently described by author Michael Walzer in his book, “Just and Unjust Wars.” In order for a war to be considered justified it has to be fought as a last resort or in response to outside attack; methods used must be proportional and civilians must be protected.
The term “just war” is ambiguous at best, and many since St. Augustine in the 5th century have attempted to set moral limits on war, whether concerning the causes, prosecution, or proliferation of it. The fact that the theories that emerged were at times misused in no way invalidates them. The dissenters' advantage lies in the fact that the various applications of military action were made measurable in retrospect. Adherents to the theories believed that certain rules always applied, even in war.
George W. Bush’s attempt to justify his invasion of Iraq in 2003 was vehemently contradicted by intellectuals like Walzer at the time. Invasion with the objective of regime change was not a just war. Jimmy Carter, another American Nobel Peace Laureate, made the same argument: an essentially unilateral attack on Iraq did not fulfill the conditions for being termed a just war. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times called it a war of choice.
Six years later, the debate has flared up once more in the USA, albeit this time over a different war: Afghanistan. Ever since Obama announced a troop surge there, the question has come up as to whether it is still a just war. In his article featured by “Dissent” magazine, Walzer does not exclude the possibility that the war is just, but says he has his doubts. He expresses doubt not because the original justification of self-defense was false (toppling the Taliban was a direct response to 9/11, and they had been granted safe haven in Afghanistan), but because, due to George W. Bush’s malfeasance, more troops than the U.S. wanted to provide are now necessary to complete the mission. On the other hand, the failures of the past are a good reason for supporting Obama’s actions to remedy them. After eight years, the Afghans deserve to keep their newly granted freedoms; the only question now is whether that is being accomplished in a just manner.
The Afghanistan situation demonstrates the difficulty in translating theory into practice, and Obama realizes that. In his Oslo speech, he admitted “that no matter how justified, war promises human tragedy.” He did not start the war in Afghanistan, but he must bring it to a conclusion, and he must do it in as just a manner as possible.
Previous article![]( "Americans Find Emissions Addiction Hard to Quit")
