The "Just War" Theory - A "How-to" On How Not to Win

Perhaps you've never heard of the "Just War" theory; I hadn't heard of it until a few months ago.

It's a formal theory that is the only theory of the ethics of war taught today at West Point, in our other military colleges, and in our universities. It has widely influenced our media, our politicians, our military leaders, our diplomatic corps, and the population at large.

The "Just War" theory is the reason for the recent morally obscene outcome of the debacle between Hezbollah and Israel, and  it is responsible for the fact that we in the U.S. have not won a war (or even had the integrity to formally declare war) since WWII. The principles of the "Just War" theory are consistent with the goal of the United Nations to assure that its prohibition against solving problems between nations by waging war would result in the defeat of any nation that should it try to engage in it.

The UN was founded at the end of WWII; since joining up, the United States has been involved in several "armed conflicts," "hostilities" and "police actions," but has neither formally declared war nor has it won any of the "actions" it has been involved in. At best, the results have been a draw, a return to the "status quo ante." At worst, the result has been a defeat, such as experienced by the U.S. in Vietnam, and by Israel in the recent debacle with Hezbollah, where Israel, clearly the aggrieved party, was also defeated.

The "Just War" theory places so many restrictions on how to engage in warfare that the side choosing to adopt it is assured of losing, while the side not adopting it is assured of winning.

The "Just War" theory had it's beginnings in antiquity. Thinkers in Greece and Rome began to consider under what conditions military force is justified, and how to conduct war in an ethical manner. These principles are called jus ad bellum and jus in bello, respectively.

Christian theologians, especially St. Augustine, added their own twist to it, and when the notion of French philosopher Auguste Comte that the highest moral objective that anyone could achieve was through sacrificing oneself for the benefit of others became generally accepted, that was thrown into the hopper too. That particular principle - the one promoting self-sacrifice as morally good - was refined and given a name, "altruism" (meaning "other-ism"). In essence, it makes self-defense an immoral act.

The "Just War" theory was formalized as a theory and given its name in more recent times, when its principles were accepted by secular philosophers in addition to religious thinkers.

It is written about at length in the book "Just and Unjust Wars" by Michael Walzer. This is the primary textbook used in most places where courses about the ethics of war are taught, including West Point.

Our "rules of engagement" are taken straight from the "Just War" theory, and have cost countless American soldiers their lives. Here's an example from Walzer's book: ". . .he (the soldier) cannot kill civilians. . .because he finds them between himself and his enemies. . .if saving civilian lives means risking soldiers' lives, the risk must be accepted."

It was because of the "Just War" theory that the Israelis were so loudly and universally condemned by the "international community" when its soldiers were fired upon by Hezbollah fighters who were hiding behind UN observers, and then two of the UN observers were killed when the Israelis defended themselves.

This sort of thing happens all the time in Iraq. For example, if our soldiers are fired upon from a mosque, they may often not be allowed to fire back in self defense because a civilian might be hurt. Never mind that the "civilian" might actually be part of the enemy force firing upon the Americans, or that he appears to be a threat that cannot be distinguished from those firing upon them.

More than just about anyone else, St. Augustine contributed heavily to the idea that self-defense is an act of immorality. In his writings, he discusses whether a Christian can ever justify killing another person. Augustine's answer was that while one could use force to protect one's neighbor, it could not be used to defend oneself.

As explained by Jean Elshtain, the author of "Just War Against Terror," Augustine said that it was not proper to kill to defend oneself alone, but that it was better to be harmed than to inflict harm. It was permissible to kill, though, in order to save the lives of others, if the others' lives were at risk.

In short, according to Augustine and Comte, if you are personally attacked, you may not defend yourself; however, if another person is attacked, it's OK for you to go to their defense. Violence is "just" or "moral" only when it involves the defense of others, but not of oneself.

Contemporary "Just War" theory has included a change with the addition of the "right to self-defense" among its tenets - but the "right to self defense" is a bit different from what you might think it is.

The theory of "Just War" demands that six conditions must be satisfied before hostilities commence:

1) The war must be for a just cause.

2) The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful authority.

3) The intention behind the war must be good.

4) All other ways of resolving the problem should have been tried first.

5) There must be a reasonable chance of success.

6) The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.

Let's take a look at these conditions:

1) What is the definition of a "just cause"? 

Today, a "humanitarian" or "peacekeeping" mission is considered a "just" cause for war; going into Somalia, Kosovo, and Lebanon (during President Reagan's administration) were considered "just" reasons for putting American lives at risk, precisely because they were carried out for the benefit of others, and no threat to the United States was involved.

2) What constitutes a "lawful authority"?

More and more often, nations go as supplicants to the United Nations to request its permission to act in their own defense. Even the United States does this, although it is widely known that most of its members are our direct or indirect enemies. Less and less frequently do sovereign nations take the responsibility for deciding for themselves what is in their own best interests when it comes to the decision to wage war. "Lawful authority" is, at best, a vague idea frought with uncertainty.

3) What is meant by "good"?

"Good" means going to war for the benefit of someone else, but not for yourself.

Only initially was the potential threat to the United States because of Saddam's WMD program and its support of an entity - al Qaeda - that had killed three thousand Americans stated as a reason for the use of military force against Iraq. When the "international community," via the United Nations, objected to the United States going to war in order to defend itself from a "grave and gathering threat," the long, drawn out debate gave Saddam plenty of time to successfully spirit many of his WMDs out of Iraq and hide the rest. Then the "intention" for the use of military force was quickly changed to "freeing the Iraqi people from their suffering under a cruel dictator."

4) What degree of threat must one endure before going to war?

Must we ignore Iran's clear declaration of war against us? Was the invasion of our embassy and the capture of our diplomats an invasion of sovereign United States territory? Must we ignore Iran's call for the destruction of the United States? Must we wait for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and smuggle a nuclear device into our country before defending ourselves? Is is morally appropriate for us, knowing that their goal is our destruction, to allow them to increase their influence in other countries, build up their weapons, gain advantages through "little wars," and recruit converts to their cause? Should we attempt to negotiate with an enemy which will not negotiate, or bribe an enemy who is not interested in what we have to offer? Should we make agreements with a country whose religious philosophy holds that it is not necessary to observe the terms of the agreement made with the infidel? Does the infiltration of Hezbollah throughout South America, and the smuggling of its agents across our unprotected border with Mexico not constitute a threat? 

5) What is meant by "success"?

Is "success" the withdrawal of North Korea behind the 38th parallel where it started from, with thousands of Americans stationed in South Korea to protect it from an aggressive dictator who has been developing nuclear weapons and the capability of delivering them to our country a "success"? Is the hasty withdrawal from Vietnam after losing thousands upon thousands of American lives a "success"? Was the retreat from Lebanon after Hezbollah killed 243 American Marines a "success"? Was the withdrawal from Somalia after the president's refusal to send aid to American soldiers killed and dragged through the streets after their helicoptor was shot down a "success"? Is the establishment of a constitution based on sharia law in both Afghanistan and Iraq a "success"?

6) What means of achieving the ends are considered "proportionate"?

How many times did you hear the "international community," and many in our own media and Congress, howl about "disproportionate response" in the recent "conflict" between Hezbollah and Israel?

"Proportionality" is one of the "Just War" theory's hallmarks. According to Just War theory, the well being of others - a humanitarian, or peacekeeping mission, for example - is the only morally proper reason for going to war. This means that any damage inflicted by a war must be in proportion to the gains made for the humanitarian goal.

When Israel's soldiers were kidnapped, and Israel attempted to prevent their removal to Syria or Iran by destroying roads with access to those countries, patrolling the seas, and bombing the runways of the airport, the "international community" screamed "DISPROPORTIONATE!" When Hezbollah began to rain unguided bombs indiscriminately by the hundreds each day on non-combatant civilians in Israel, and Israel responded by destroying rocket-launching sites and Hezbollah fighters hidden among the civilian population, with the inevitable destruction of civilian infrastructure, the "international community" screamed "DISPROPORTIONATE!"

The "Just War" theory maintains that a government's actions - in this case Israel's - are "good" only to the extent that it places a value on other people, including the people on the side of the enemy. Israel should therefore place the same value on the enemy soldiers as it does on its own. As Walzer points out in his book (remember, this is the "ethics of war" book studied by our military), ". . .the moral status of individual soldiers on both sides is very much the same: they face each other as moral equals."

Early in the "conflict," President Bush tried, briefly, to buck the Just War theory when he said that Israel had a "right to defend itself," and Condeleeza Rice said that it was not appropriate to return to the "status quo ante."

But there was a problem; in Israel, Ehud Olmert, acted as if he subscribes to the Just War theory, and failed to follow the well thought through plan of the Israeli military. As a result, Israel failed to achieve its publically stated objective of destroying Hezbollah quickly, before the rising crescendo of objections from the "international community" became too loud to ignore.

Within days, Bush lapsed back into the Just War mode, and leaned on Israel to agree to a cease-fire. Rice began running back and forth to the Middle East to return the situation to the status quo ante which she had rejected just shortly before.

The "Just War" theory is a theory that is specifically designed to prevent victory. Any nation that seriously subscribes to it is doomed to defeat.

The "Just War" theory is also why the United States has not won a "conflict" since World War II.

The "Just War" theory is the Politically Correct version of warfare, and like the influence of PC in all other spheres of our lives, it puts us in harm's way. Today, because of the "Just War" theory, we in mortal danger from an enemy that ignores it, and in fact takes full advantage of the fact that we adhere to it.

(For a complete treatment of the "Just War" theory, see the article "The 'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" in the spring 2006 issue of "The Objective Standard" at http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2006-spring/just-war-theory.asp).