Principles of the Just War

The following ideas are meant to begin my personal discussion and will have more "meat" on them as the discussion unfolds. The "Principles of the Just War" came from the website to the right under Links.

• A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  Was the Iraq War justifiable based on the above requirement?
  
• A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  Is the United States and those allies who are fought or are fighting in the Iraq War a legitimate authority? Did the final UN Security Council resolutions provide the legitimate authority that led to war?
  
• A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  Is the Iraq War a redress for wrongs suffered either for the United States or on behalf of the people of Iraq? Were the underlying and overlying intentions just to redress the injuries?
  
• A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  Is the United States bogged down with an unreasonable chance of success or are the deaths and injuries incurred hopeless?
  
• The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  Oh yes, to re-establish peace. Is the United States and its allies in the process of re-establishing a peace, perhaps a peace lost since Saddam's invasion of Kuwait? Is the goal of the transition to Iraq's constitutional soverignty (perhaps Democracy) a preferable to the peace that would have prevailed (or continued) if the war had not been fought?
  
• The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  Is the violence of the war proportional to the injury suffered by the people of Iraq and the military of the United States and allies?
  
• The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
  Is this statement true of the Iraq War?

In the end, how many of these justifiable means are necessary in order to call the Iraq War just or unjust?

Justice Peace-makers versus Appeasement Peace

Children do not want justice; they want to be treated fairly. The adults I run into are much the same way and this is becoming more and more evident. Most think of “fairness” as an individual treatment rather than a collective comparison. By this I think people want to have their way and resort to the “that’s not fair” thought when they don’t get something. Justice is the ideal sense of fairness and a far better word to use, but most people do not mean this when they say “fair”.

Little Jimmy says, “Mom, my brother Gabe has a bigger scoop of ice cream. That’s not fair!” At that point mom says, “Gabe is bigger than you Jim, he gets a bigger scoop.” Is that a just argument? Is that not “fair”? The answers are probably “yes”. Justice does not mean “equality.” “Equality” may occur in life. “Equality” may be pushed by people groups or politicians and equality in many of these instances may not be just. Fairness is a word used for “equality” and yet “fairness” does not mean “justice” based on the way people contemporarily think of the words.

I am using the above as a framework to compare the word phrases Just Peacemaking to Appeasement Peacemaking as it relates to the current world/American conflict over the war in Iraq and/or the situation in North Korea or Iran. Specifically, I see a dire difference between how people think of “peacemaking” and Peace-making.

When most people talk of peacemaking they talk of the warm fuzzies we feel when we view the world as a place where people are not killing, maiming, torturing, abusing, dictating, hating, and/or persecuting others. As long as we do not see it, hear it, feel it, or sense it in our regular “beat the pavement grind called life” we are “content”, at peace, and believe peacemaking is a work. It is sorta like the dinosaurs living before the Ice Age. Since they didn’t know or understand they did not comprehend their impending doom. Maybe another example is the Titanic.

Ultimately, however, we run the risk of living in a false sense of peace. These people live lives in a world of appeasement peace. Because that is what it means to feel the warm fuzzies that ignore justice. It is better to leave a murdering tyrant in power over his people rather than remove him. If we don’t pay attention to the problem, then the problem does not exist and we have “peace.” As a result of this thinking, anyone who redirects our attention to focus on just peacemaking becomes hated, persecuted, an enemy. After all, how dare someone interfere in my warm fuzzies? Now, I am not writing about the underlying or overlying motives for going to war. I am strictly writing about Saddam’s removal from power. Because the United States went into Iraq the warm fuzzies of Appeasement Peace ended. The President removed the false peace of appeasement peace to institute something else. Here I am strictly writing about Saddam’s tyrannical removal from power. I am not writing about whether or not the President was just.

So, we are now at war and the question we need to really analyze and consider is rather simple. “Is war a method of just peace-making?” Once we answer that question we can ask the follow up question, “Is there a context where the Iraq war was or could have been a method for just peace-making?” Now, we can begin to look at the questions that ultimately historians will answer, “Were the underlying and overlying motives for going to war in Iraq just and how many just reasons were necessary to make the war a just peace-making?” Here is how I answer these questions.

(1) War is a method of just peace-making.
(2) The Iraq War is a method for just peace-making.
(3) I believe there are underlying and overlying motives for the war that were/are just.
(4) I believe there are, probably, underlying motives for the war that are not just. Specifically, anyone in congress or the White House that believes the war was justified so that in the future there is “coerced” access to Iraqi oil fields or special treatment economically from Iraq is not being a just peace-maker. I cannot judge how intently anyone may feel about this but I am opposed to any coerced special treatment. If however, the Iraqi’s believe and choose to show thanks, this is entirely their choosing and not related to any justice argument for the war.
(5) Will historians eventually determine the Iraq War to be a Just War? I believe the answer is, Yes.
(6) Do I believe most Americans and other countries (ie: France, Germany, Russia etc) use Just Peace-making when they think of the War in Iraq? No. I sincerely believe that people who are against the President and against this war are stuck in the theory of Appeasement Peacemaking.

There are several other parts of the world that demand just peace-making and will/should require the same sacrifices made to bring about the just peace-making in Iraq. These places include North Korea and Iran as well as about a dozen other world locations. How do we determine which nation is next? Underlying and overlying motives will probably play a factor, as will the American and world resolve to bring about just peace-making…through war if necessary.

I will conclude my thoughts where I began them. “Fairness” is not a valid argument when one says,

“Why aren’t we in North Korea, after all we are in Iraq? It must be because Iraq has the bigger scoop of ice cream (oil).”

This question and statement example is centered on the improper use of fairness, ignores justice and ignores peace-making. Bottom line, this comment is an example of partisan rhetoric based solely in the theory of Appeasement Peacemaking.