Just War
June 1, 2006 1:44 PM   Subscribe

THE EVOLUTION OF THE JUST WAR TRADITION: DEFINING JUS POST BELLUM For nearly two thousand years, the just war tradition has provided critical moral guidance on the initiation of war and on conduct during warfare. Today, the tradition must evolve to analyze and develop criteria to apply to jus post bellum.
posted by caddis (24 comments total)
 
correct link (pdf)
posted by caddis at 1:46 PM on June 1, 2006


The scholar Jean Bethke Elshtain has written some interesting things on Just War theory.

But after this, why would you post directly to a PDF, brother?
posted by mattbucher at 1:51 PM on June 1, 2006


The "Just War" theory is, IMHO, just footnote that pairs up to an asterisk on the commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill, invented in the 5th century to get folks to fight and kill for the "Prince of Peace." Calling it a tradition only masks the original perversion of the #1 Christian mandate. I find it ironic that so many Christians consider the military an honorable calling.
posted by ahimsakid at 1:59 PM on June 1, 2006


Error 404 on a one-word post? And a direct .pdf link when you got it right?

Great googley-moogley!

[On topic]
I also find the Just War debate hard to swallow. There can be no such thing- modern progress is the elimination of war and development of an educated and morally advanced population able to transcend the need for war through creation of a viable system in which all parties have vast disincentives against the idea of war. Just War advocates merely hamper real progress towards a better world by attempting to defend the indefensible and maintain the status quo.

War can hardly be just unless it is purely on the defensive against a mindless destructive force intent on total destruction- and such a force exists only in Hollywood.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:04 PM on June 1, 2006


The dude writes his footnotes as if he wants to be David Foster Wallace1.

1Which is why we shouldn't let lawyers write about war. Besides, as with most military writing, you're better off just re-reading Clausewitz.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:07 PM on June 1, 2006


t.d.strange: was fighting the Axis, who had both bombed us at Pearl Harbor and Germany who had declared war on us and was about to invade England a just war? When the Germans broke their treaty with Russia and in vaded that country, were the Russians fighting to save their nation in a just war?
posted by Postroad at 2:13 PM on June 1, 2006


Although I'm not sure the author's proposed jus post bellum criteria really add anything to the debate, it was interesting reading about the nuances of just war theory in the difference phases of war. Thanks for the link.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:14 PM on June 1, 2006


Somewhat related, imo, is William Vollmann's "Rising Up Rising Down" which tries to grapple with why some wars are "justified" and what moral calculus might allow for violence ("'The violence of war should be employed against no more people than is needed to accomplish a specific justified result, and the number of people harmed by the violence should be fewer than the number of people helped by it.").
I mean, your Old Testament "thou shalt not kill" is pretty simplistic since you've got OT guys like David killing Goliath and God himself smiting all over the place. There are shades of gray and "just war" is one of them.
posted by mattbucher at 2:17 PM on June 1, 2006


Postroad- Not Just. Entering WWII was a perhaps necessary action to preserve the position of the US and other more civilized countries against Hitler's aggression and the rise of militant fascism. Maybe as close to a 'Just' war as can be cited, but I would argue the truly appropriate adjective would be 'necessary'.

The conditions that allowed Hitler's rise to power and subsequently enabled WWII to take place at all stem directly from WWI and the sanctions imposed on Germany in its aftermath. I know of few who would argue WWI was a 'Just' war in any context, and WWII was ultimately a delayed extension of the same conflicts. Also- its unclear if Hitler could have been held in check had someone stood up to him pre-1939. We may never know, but my gut feeling is yes.

Therefore I maintain that Just War advocates retard the progress towards a better world.
posted by T.D. Strange at 2:51 PM on June 1, 2006




Didn't Japan attack the US at Pearl Harbor because they were interfering with Japanese access to oil?
posted by atrazine at 3:28 PM on June 1, 2006


Didn't Japan attack the US at Pearl Harbor because they were interfering with Japanese access to oil?

Correct. (Japan wanted to cover its flank while attacking Southeast Asia.) And the US had stopped supplying oil to Japan because Japan had invaded China.
posted by russilwvong at 3:51 PM on June 1, 2006


Didn't Japan attack the US at Pearl Harbor because they were interfering with Japanese access to oil?

And how was Japan "accessing" this oil?

By invading and enslaving the shit out of most of Asia. Starting in 1894 with the Annexation of Taiwan and S. Manchuria. And on to The rape of Nanking in 1937. Then invasion of Indochina in 1940.

What would the world say should the US go about "accessing" Saudi and Iranian oil in the same manner?

Ask yourself how they feel about our "accessing" Iraq.

That we choked off their oil was perhaps a wise reaction to already aggressive expansionist militarist Empire that had assassinated all opposition at home and was committing atrocity after atrocity ever where it went and then joined the "Axis" powers with a Fascist Germany.

Was giving them "access" to fuel more of the same a good idea?
posted by tkchrist at 3:51 PM on June 1, 2006


What would the world say should the US go about "accessing" Saudi and Iranian oil in the same manner?

[clearing of throat] We, that is to say, the civilised nations of the world are hereby resolved to..
well, I mean that: We will use any means neccesary to...
Sorry, sorry, let me try again.

We are very cross indeed. Oh yes, ever so cross.
Really, you have done it this time young man.
We may just have to write you an angry letter.
posted by atrazine at 4:40 PM on June 1, 2006


Here's the original article as HTML.

And here's a good book on the subject of the laws of war, available online: Crimes of War.

tkchrist: And how was Japan "accessing" this oil?

By invading and enslaving the shit out of most of Asia.


Actually, it was buying most of its oil from the US. After the Japanese invasion of China and the resulting US boycott (Japan imported more than half of its iron, steel, and oil from the US), Japan decided to lunge south and seize the oil fields in Southeast Asia. It attacked Pearl Harbor to protect its flank.
posted by russilwvong at 4:48 PM on June 1, 2006


Russ. Japan had, by 1900, pretty much established itself as a new militarist Empire with an eye on the rest of Asia. It needed raw material for it's war machine, right?

A self-perpetuating cycle of invasion and needing more resources to keep expanding. So it's not a stretch for the US to see over the horizon.

Why did it annex Korea and Manchuria in the early 1900's? Resources. Labor. What did it do once it was there? Murder. Slavery. Rape.

Surely you cannot believe Japan would NOT have done so if we kept selling them oil.

That some people now blame the US for Japan bombing Pearl and enslaving the rest of Asia is really quite a revision.

When I read this "Didn't Japan attack the US at Pearl Harbor because they were interfering with Japanese access to oil?

I find very much an incomplete and very revisionist statement that begs correction.
posted by tkchrist at 5:16 PM on June 1, 2006


WWII was not a just war. It was not just of Germany to invade, but nationalism (among other things) was used to convince the German people otherwise. Same goes for Japan, and presumably, the USA today.
posted by -harlequin- at 5:17 PM on June 1, 2006


That some people now blame the US for Japan bombing Pearl and enslaving the rest of Asia is really quite a revision.

If people do this, it's news to me.

Of course what I said was 'incomplete' it was a single sentence. By no means was I trying to reframe WWII in the Pacific as being the fault of the united states. On the other hand, there is often a naive species of American exceptionalism that imagines the Japanese attack as an incomprehensible attack on a totally innocent and uninvolved nation.
posted by atrazine at 5:40 PM on June 1, 2006


tkchrist: Surely you cannot believe Japan would NOT have done so if we kept selling them oil.

Of course. I think the US's actions prior to Pearl Harbor were perfectly reasonable.

-harlequin-: WWII was not a just war.

Not even from the point of view of the Allies?
posted by russilwvong at 5:40 PM on June 1, 2006


Over the weekend, CSPAN's BookTV program ran video of a recent address by Noam Chomsky to an audience at the U.S. Miltary Academy on the subject of just war focusing on the writings of Michael Walzer. This is the CSPAN front page for it. This is a link to the video (RealPlayer required)

Perhaps I'm not respectful enough of the military, but Chomsky at West Point had an air of Daniel in the lions den to me. It was quite interesting, and the QA period afterword was also quite good.

Bottom line, he doesn't think much of just war theory, nor much of Michael Walzer's consideration of it.

A very interesting view.
posted by hwestiii at 5:47 PM on June 1, 2006


And how was Japan "accessing" this oil?

By invading and enslaving the shit out of most of Asia. Starting in 1894 with the Annexation of Taiwan and S. Manchuria. And on to The rape of Nanking in 1937. Then invasion of Indochina in 1940.

What would the world say should the US go about "accessing" Saudi and Iranian oil in the same manner?


Uh no, japan "Accessed" the oil buy buying it from us, which we stopped doing after they started all that raping and pillaging shit. Then they bombed us thinking we would start selling it again.

At the time the US was the worlds largist oil producer. In fact, today we are the worlds third largest oil producer. Just behing Saudi Arabia and Russia.
posted by delmoi at 8:15 PM on June 1, 2006


I find very much an incomplete and very revisionist statement that begs correction.

Whatever point your trying to get across is getting lost here. I have no idea what you are trying to say. You can't compare the US to Iraq in this situation. We both have Oil, yet Iraq isn't capable of conquering the entire US.
posted by delmoi at 8:19 PM on June 1, 2006


Isn't a Jus Post Bellum redundant if the victor writes the Law books?
posted by UbuRoivas at 8:34 PM on June 1, 2006


I took a class on Just War Theory recently and most of it just seemed like made up reasons to kill people through loopholes. More links here.
posted by mustcatchmooseandsquirrel at 9:18 AM on June 3, 2006


« Older Democracy Inaction   |   Outing rotten men Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments