Thank you to Cubed for writing and submitting this article to be posted here at IBA.
"The Democrats.have an opportunity to regain a position of moral stature before the American people. Should they.choose to retreat, then their unwillingness to value the lives of American citizens over the lives of foreign enemies will be made clear.and [they] will be seen as.no more principled.and no more American than the Republicans."
("No Substitute for Victory," John Lewis, The Objective Standard, Winter 2006-07).
The above quote is probably the best, shortest, most to-the-point explanation of the consequences of the "Just War Theory."The "Just War Theory" is the only theory of the ethics of war being taught today at our military colleges and universities, where the primary textbook is Michael Walzer's "Just and Unjust Wars." It has deeply influenced our politicians, our media and our diplomatic corps. It has also influenced the population at large, even though many have never heard of it.
It is because of the Just War Theory that we have not won a single armed conflict since 1945, the end of WWII, and it explains why we are not winning in Iraq today.
The two issues - what constitutes the justification for going to war ("jus ad bellum") and how to conduct war in an ethical manner ("jus in bello") - have been concerns since classical antiquity. Never, however, was the concept of "not winning" considered a viable option in the ethics of war.
Such is not the case today; the "Just War Theory" is essentially the application of Political Correctness to warfare, and just as PC has had an enormously destructive influence on civil society, the JWT has had an enormously destructive influence on the conduct of war, and its consequences.
What is it? How did it start?
The concept of the Just War Theory had its first stirrings when St. Augustine, an early Christian theologian who lived just before the fall of the Western Roman Empire, considered the question of whether a Christian could ever kill another person, in view of the Biblical admonition to "turn the other cheek." Augustine concluded that a person can use force to protect his neighbor, but not to protect himself. Violence could be "just" or "moral" only when it served to protect others, but not 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 in order to save the lives of others, if the others; lives were at risk.
Augustine was speaking primarily about the behavior of individuals, not warfare, but he did introduce the idea that it is proper to engage in warfare to relieve suffering and spread Christianity.
Later theologians expanded upon the idea of sacrificing one's own interests for the benefit of others as being a proper justification for going to war, and eventually, it was adopted in non-theological circles as well.
In the 19th Century, the French philosopher Auguste Comte coined a term for the concept of valuing the lives of others above one's own: he called it "altruism," meaning "other-ism." Today, it is common for people who use the word to think they are simply being considerate of others, or thoughtful and kind, but it goes far beyond that, up to the point of what amounts to suicide.
While in recent times "self defense" has been added as a permissible justification for going to war, but it isn't what you might understand "self defense" to mean.
The "Just War Theory" requires that six conditions be satisfied before hostilities commence:
1) The war must be for a just cause.
2) The war must be lawfully declared by a lawful entity.
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 for success.
6) The means used must be in proportion to the end that the war seeks to achieve.
Let's take a good look at these conditions:
1) What is a "just cause"?
Today, only a humanitarian or peacekeeping mission is considered a "just" cause for going to war. Somalia, Kosovo, and Lebanon (during President Reagan's administration) all qualified as "just" reasons for putting American lives at risk. They were "just" precisely because they were carried out for the benefit of others and because no threat to the United States was involved.
In a field manual on a new counterinsurgency doctrine published for the Army and Marines, emphasis is placed on efforts to win the support of the people and isolate the insurgents from their potential base of support. The difficulties of carrying out the rules of engagement of the doctrine are so pronounced that some military officers call the doctrine the "graduate level of war."
2) What is a "lawful authority"?
Today's Just War Theory grew simultaneously with the UN, which was established to provide an alternative to war as a means of solving disputes between nations. More and more often today, nations look to the United Nations for permission to go to war. Less and less often do they take upon themselves the responsibility for the decision to go to war. As time passes, individual nations are giving up their sovereignty to a corrupt body in matters of self-defense. In "Just War Theory," the notion of what constitutes "lawful" authority is a vague idea fraught with uncertainty as the concept of sovereignty fades.
3) What is meant by "good"?
"Good" means going to war for the benefit of someone else, but not for your own self-defense.
Only initially was the threat to the United States - Saddam's WMD program, the fact that he hosted training camps for al-Qaeda, an entity that had declared war on the U.S. and killed nearly three thousand - stated as the reason for using military force against Iraq. When the "international community," via the UN, 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 all the time he needed to successfully spirit away many of his WMDs into Syria, and from Syrian ports to other places around the world.
At this point, the "justification" for war against Iraq changed to "freeing the Iraqi people from suffering under a cruel dictator and spreading freedom and democracy."
4) What level of threat must one endure before going to war?
Must we ignore Iran's open declaration of war against us? Was the invasion of our embassy and the imprisonment of our diplomats a violation of United States territory? Must we ignore the call of Iran for the destruction of the "Great Satan"? Must we wait for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon and/or smuggle a nuclear device into our country before we defend ourselves? Is it morally appropriate for us, knowing that their goal is our destruction, to allow them to increase their influence in other countries, to build up their weapons, to gain advantages through "little wars" by proxy, and to 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 anything we have to offer? Should we make agreements with a country whose state religious philosophy holds that it is not necessary to observe the terms of agreements made with the infidel? Do the infiltration of Hesbollah throughout South America, and the smuggling of its agents across our unprotected border with Mexico, not constitute intent to do harm? Does the formation of an alliance with the hostile leader of a South American country, Hugo Chavez, not constitute a hostile move, a threat?
5) What is meant by "success"?
Is "success" the withdrawal of North Korea behind the 38th parallel, and thus achieving the status quo ante meet the criteria for "success"? Does this result, which cost many thousands of American lives and has resulted in a hostile puppet of Communist China that possesses nuclear weapons, and the means of deploying them, qualify as a success? Was 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 dragged through the streets and killed after their helicopter was shot down a "success"? Is the establishment of constitutions based on sharia in both Iraq and Afghanistan a "success"?
6) What means of achieving goals are considered "proportionate"?
How many times did you hear the "international community," our own media, and Congress, howl about Israel's "disproportionate" response in the recent "conflict" after Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers?
"Proportionality" is one of the hallmarks of the "Just War Theory." According to the JWT, the well being of others 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" or "peacekeeping" goal.
When Israel's soldiers were kidnapped by Hezbollah, and Israel attempted to prevent their removal to Syria or Iran by destroying transportation facilities (roads, ports, air fields), the "international community" screamed "DISPROPORTIONATE!" When Hezbollah began to rain unguided bombs indiscriminately by the hundreds every day on non-combatant civilians in Israel, 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 have placed the same value on the enemy soldiers as it did on its own. As Walzer points out in his book, "The moral status of individual soldiers on both sides is very much the same; they face each other as moral equals. Here is an overt example of the politically correct principle of moral equivalency applied to warfare!
Early in the Hezbollah-Israeli 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."
Unfortunately, Ehud Olmert, Prime Minister of Israel, subscribes to the Just War Theory, and he ignored the extremely well thought out plan of the Israeli military. As a result, Israel failed to achieve its publicly stated objective of the rapid destruction of Hezbollah, giving the "international community" time to launch an increasingly loud crescendo of objections, and within days, Bush lapsed back into the Just War mode. He leaned on Israel to agree to a cease fire, and Rice began running back and forth to the Middle East to return the situation to the previously rejected "status quo ante."
The "Just War Theory" is specifically designed to prevent victory. Any nation that subscribes to it seriously is doomed to failure.
This Politically Correct version of warfare puts us in harm's way, just as the Politically Correct version of civil society does. Today, because of the "just War Theory," we are in mortal danger on all fronts from an enemy that totally ignores it, and takes full advantage of the fact that we adhere to it.
No comments:
Post a Comment