© 2006 dayv. some rights reserved.
Thou shall not kill, a powerful statement maintained by most societies, usually beyond solely for the purpose of prolonging its own existence. Despite this, it appears to be nearly a human eventuality that one society will war against another. What might make war so acceptable to us, even more so than unexceptionable, but a incredible likelihood. We, the human race, do so much more than just accept that we will war with others that our soldiers are highly honored in their communities. Much of this probably has to do with seeing that these warriors, for the most part, exist to protect the interests of their territory, and there is nothing more forceful than the urge to continue one's own life or the need for persistence of one's DNA. One would be hard pressed to find a single organized society which did not war with another at some point in its history, yet many claim to celebrate life and punish those who take it either in a targeted manner, such as a serial killer, or more aimlessly, such as murder as a crime of passion, unless in the pursuit of war. What might justify changing our views so drastically despite our desire to be consistent in all manners of our lives? The invariability with which we combat one another is astounding. War is so common, it seems to be almost a natural human condition, a fact we find to be deplorable. From here on out, we shall discuss what humans use to justify actions which under any other circumstances would be unjustifiable.
The first condition we will examine may seem somewhat apparent, a defensive war. It would be difficult to find a critic of a war that was being fought to protect against an unprovoked enemy. Self defense has always been an acceptable reason to use force against another, however it must be proportional to the offensive force. Just like it would be excessive to shoot somebody who is attacking with bare fists, so too would it be to send a large force to combat an initial attack by a small one. Retaliatory quantity is not the sole important factor, quality of the return attack is essential. If an attacker has little more than conventional weapons, retaliation can only only match what the original attack consisted of and be sufficient to halt a future attack. Attempting to exact revenge after an attack leads only to who can strike the hardest, the fastest, which we all know to be a useless venture.
Two of the most well-known just war theorists were Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Most authors agree that "St. Augustine was the originator of the Just War Theory."(Catholic Encyclopedia 803) When it came to individual self-defense, St. Augustine contended that one's own life or property was never a justification for killing one's neighbor. Christian charity was the motivating force behind this statement. But when one speaks of rulers of nations they have the obligation to maintain peace. This obligation gives them the right to wage war. He says, The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority.(Aquinas) Those subject to the rulers must obey unless they command something against a Divine Law. For St. Augustine the only reason for waging a war would be to defend the nation's peace against serious injury. He says, “A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly.”(Aquinas) The intention of the war is very important for St. Augustine. He says, “The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacifistic and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such things, all these are rightly condemned in war.”(Aquinas) St. Augustine emphasizes the idea of restoration of peace as the main motive of war. He says, “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.”(Aquinas) So in St. Augustine's thinking a war “was limited by its purpose, its authority and its conduct.”(Catholic Encyclopedia) St. Augustine's just war theory involves eight principal elements: (1) a punitive conception of war, (2) assessment of the evil of war in terms of the moral evil of attitudes and desires, (3) a search for authorization for the use of violence, (4) a dualistic epistemology which gives priority to spiritual goods, (5) interpretation of evangelical norms in terms of inner attitudes, (6) passive attitude to authority and social change, (7) use of Biblical texts to legitimate participation in war, and (8) an analogical conception of peace. It does not include noncombatant immunity or conscientious objection. A contemporary assessment of the elements is offered. (Catholic Encyclopedia)
Prior to entering World War II, the United States was nearly wholly against the idea of joining the war; probably in large part due to there being no immediate danger for the United States. During the beginning of the war, many regarded it as an unjust war, and this persisted until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7th, 1941, thereby bringing the United States and Japan into the war. Nowadays, there are few who would contend that entering the war was a poor decision, or an unjust one, by the United States, and many would say that the United States should have entered the war earlier because there had already been many millions of Jews killed in Hitler's work camps. Had the United States entered the war earlier, many of these lives could have been saved.
The conflict in Vietnam was a somewhat similar story. The United States citizens were against the war, in general, and in order to properly staff the military, congress had to put a draft into effect where young people were brought unwillingly to the unforgiving terrain that is Vietnam. The war was characterized by fierce bloodshed and stiff guerilla tactics by the Vietcong and the Communist Democratic Republic of Vietnam. The difference lies in the end result. The United States lost in Vietnam, and as such cannot celebrate it as a great military victory of right over wrong as we can World War II. This causes many to claim the war unjust despite the purpose.
A frequent topic of discussion is whether the Operation Iraqi Freedom, the undeclared war in Iraq, is a just war. There are many critics as well as supporters and it has very much polarized the country. Those against the war claim that it is unjust and those who are in support of it claim that Saddam Hussein's tyranny had to be removed either to prevent him from attacking us directly with weapons of mass destruction, indirectly by funding and supporting terrorists or to prevent him from further injuring his own people with all of the inhuman acts he committed. Did he have weapons of mass destruction? We found out recently he did not? Was it just for President Bush to lie to us in order that we support his desire to attack a sovereign nation who did not directly attack us first? Most likely, unless as he maintains, that the government was working on incorrect information, however, that is hardly believable. Who is right, those who support or those who do not endorse the war? It is hard to pinpoint, not all of the facts are in. One of the central ideas we need to validate whether it is just is the actual reason we entered the war. There has been much conjecture, everything from oil to Bush's own homicidal tendencies to an attempt to bring the nation together as war with a common enemy is an excellent way to bring out a country's nationalistic tendencies. Yet, most of this has been rather convincingly debated. What will end up being important is who wins, what the final outcome is. If the war continues the way currently is, then history classes will teach of the blunder of attacking Iraq, as has been taught since the conflict in Vietnam. On the other hand, if by some miraculous stroke of luck, President Bush is somehow able to end the war in a judicious manner, then he will end up as somewhat of a hero, and be given a prominent place in the history books, as has Harry Truman been given since being credited with ending World War II. We tend to think former will occur.
Works Cited
The New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967) vol. 14. "Morality of War," by R. A. McCormick, 803.
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, vol. 3, IIaIIaeQQ. 1-148, trans. by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (Westminster, Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981), 1354.