Because those who are Christian pacifists seem to have boundless energy to write pieces opposing the concept of a Just War, I will take the time to again defend this important idea.
Greg Boyd writes a blog titled “Random Reflections.” Boyd is a noted author, pastor and theologian. Recently he has been writing an assessment of Peter Craigie’s views expressed in a book entitled The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Wipf and Stock, 2002 [orig. 1978]). Boyd gives a lot of attention to Craigie’s work which I will not attempt to rehearse. Rather, I will focus on the content of one paragraph where Boyd reflects on the Just War Theory.
Here is what Boyd writes.
“First, I believe Craigie is largely correct in his critique of Just War theory. There is something profoundly “unrealistic” (and, arguably, “evil”) in the common assumption that declaring a war “just” lessens its horror in any way. Among a multitude of other problems, there is no objective, universally agreed upon criteria for what constitutes a “just war” or of what constitutes “just behavior” of soldiers while battling in war. The concept of “justice” that a nation or tribe uses in their Just War theorizing is largely, if not entirely, culturally conditioned. Not only this, but the concept of justice as applied to war is always employed to protect and further the interests of the nation or tribe that is doing the theorizing. Not surprisingly, every nation or tribe that has ever gone to war has felt justified doing so. After all, who would kill and be willing to be killed unless they felt their cause was justified?”
I believe that Boyd is offering several straw man arguments against Just War. First of all, proponents of Just War do not think that by “declaring a war ‘just’” that it “lessens its horror.” Proponents of Just War know that war is “hell” and, therefore, should never be engaged in until all other means of recourse have been exhausted. From a Christian perspective, the purpose of declaring a war “just” is to assure that a good-faith effort has been made to examine the causes and purposes for armed combat as it relates to the Divine Law. Justice is giving to “each man what is his due.” According to the Divine Law each man has an inalienable right to life because he is in God’s image. Only God has the right to take human life. This is why murder is a heinous and unjust act. To protect human life God has delegated to governments the responsibility to justifiably punish wrongdoers for their evil actions. This also means that a government has a God-ordained right to defend its citizens against unjust military actions. Consequently, it is unjust to wantonly attack a nation and murder its citizens. Hence, from a Christian perspective, there is a need for governments to honestly assess their actions as they relate to military combat.
Boyd also claims that there is not a “universally agreed upon criteria for what constitutes a ‘just war.’” This is a straw man argument because there is no universally agreed upon criteria for virtually any human endeavor. However, in the Western Christian tradition there is a long history of Just War Theory all the way back to Augustine. Augustine’s views supplemented by those of Thomas Aquinas are generally understood to be the basic view for Just War Theory. These are not simply “culturally conditioned” “theorizing.” Augustine lived in North Africa 1,700 years ago. The Just War Theory is trans-cultural spanning nearly 2,000 years of history. What other sociological theory is as old and as well-developed across cultures?
Contrary to Boyd’s view that every nation and tribe uses Just War to rationalize its combat; only a very few nations attempt to use Just War Theory to evaluate their engagement in warfare. This is true today and it certainly has been true for the 2,000 years of Christian history. A fact of history is that armed combat has been used as a systematic way to gain resources and territory without any recourse to the Just War Theory. In reality, the Just War Theory was developed as a response by Christians to marauding people-groups bent on expanding their sphere of influence and resource-base by attacking neighboring nations. The fact that every nation that has gone to war “has felt justified” does not mean that these nations attempted to evaluate their actions by the Just War Theory. Only Western nations have done so. For example, Islamic empires have rarely if ever felt constrained by Christian principles of Just War. More typically, they have believed that they have a religious mandate to convert non-Muslim nations by the “sword.” The Crusades, for instance, were a rather limited response to hundreds of years of Islamic military expansion including an attempt to subdue Europe which drove deep into central France.
Boyd ends his paragraph by asking, “Who would kill and be willing to be killed unless they felt their cause was justified?” My answer is that here have been and still are many people who would be very willing to attack other nations without any military provocation. Currently, there is a growing problem with pirating on the high seas. Pirates are brazenly attacking ocean-going vessels of sovereign nations. Pirates are not doing this because they think they have a just cause. Rather, they are attacking, killing and maiming people on ocean vessels for one of the oldest reasons for armed engagement—financial gain.
I cannot see where Boyd has provided even one legitimate argument against the Just War Theory.
|
There were notable and forgotten Christians alike who opposed the Nazis and gave their lives doing it. People like:
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
1906-1945
Theologian, Spiritual Writer, Author of Fiction and Poetry, Pastor. Central figure in the Protestant church struggle against Nazism
http://arts.uwaterloo.ca/~diebon06/index.html
Corrie Ten Boom
http://www.corrietenboom.com/history.htm
See this article for more:
http://www.icr.org/article/285%20/
In part, it reads,
"In The Church's Confession under Hitler, author Arthur Cochrane presents the not sufficiently well-known statement of exiled Albert Einstein, the great physicist, cited by Wilhelm Niemoller in Kampi und Zeugnis der bekennenden Kirche - Struggle and Testimony of the Confessing Church, p.526.
'Being a lover of freedom, when the (Nazi) revolution came, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but no, the universities were immediately silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers, whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks...
Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler's campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration for it because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual and moral freedom. I am forced to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.'3
Roland H. Bainton reflects part of this, adding substantiation of its truth:
Some four thousand Protestant ministers, led by Karl Barth and Hans Asmussen, formed the Confessing Church, which at Barmen in 1934 declared that no human Fuhrer could stand above the Word of God. The Confessing Church lost its properties, its seminary was suppressed, its journals were prohibited, and when war came the members of its clergy of military age and not in prison were assigned to positions of greatest danger, while the older leaders were sent to concentration camps. Among them was Martin Niemoller, a Lutheran pastor who after more than half a year in solitary confinement was brought to trial under Hitler's law against "treacherous attacks upon state and party." His refusal to capitulate and his persistent resistance to Nazism made him the symbolic figure of the Protestant opposition until the downfall of the Nazis.4
Cochrane had magnified the significance of affirming that "by January 15, 1934, there were 7,036 members" of the pfarrernotbund, Pastor's Emergency League, which was organized by Martin Niemoller, the courageous Berlin pastor. Cochrane added that in "spite of heavy losses and in spite of the imprisonment of its founder on July 1,1937, the League was never dissolved or banned, and it rendered service until as late as Christmas, 1944."3
AN OFFICIAL MESSAGE TO HITLER HIMSELF:
In a memorandum3 submitted to Hitler on June 4, 1936, the German Evangelical Church questioned whether the Chancellor was trying "to dechristianize the German people." (Hitler had little place in his heart for a religion that worshipped a Jew.) Of even more significance is the statement:
When, within the compass of the National Socialist view of life, an anti-Semitism is forced on the Christian that binds him to hatred of the Jew, the Christian injunction to love one's neighbor still stands, for him, opposed to it.3"
There are many, many more examples of Christian opposition to the Nazis. While Frankie has some obviously strong opinions on the issue, they are not based on historical fact. So, they really cannot be taken seriously.
By quietly allowing Germany to re-arm and not stepping in and dismantling Hitler's Military, they gave legitimacy to Germany's claims for war. The powerful French Military sat and watched as 2000 Nazi Motorcyclists took over the Saar in 1938. They gave Hitler Czechoslovakia and Austria. History has shown that in the final analysis the West wanted that war for reasons of their own, including economics.
●I was tracking with you until you got to your last sentence here. Europe certainly did not profit economically from WWII. The war effort did have a positive effect on the U.S. economy but this was an unforeseen consequence. In fact, most people were predicting that as soon as the war effort was ended the U.S. would slump back into the Depression. Additionally, there was a very strong Isolationist movement in the U.S. that had resisted America getting involved in another war “over there.” The general attitude of the American public was that we had more than our share of problems and we didn’t need to be drawn again into Europe’s intramural squabbles. What I think people did not see (even the Germans) is that the advancements in the technology of war were impelling the world into what we now call “total war.”
●These factors taken together should soften our view of our forbearers. It is much easier to look back with 20-20 hindsight. That being said, I believe one of the great lessons of WWII is that there is a limit to what diplomacy can achieve. Sometimes international bullies arise. We can see now that if the West had opposed Hitler in Czechoslovakia and Austria, millions upon millions of lives would have been spared. In this sense, excusing ourselves from engaging in military action because war is “not justified” led to unimaginable carnage. Likewise, if the local police decide that it is never justified for them to use lethal force, the result will be devastating consequences for the citizenry. The police must do the messy work of developing and implementing justifiable parameters for the use of force. I believe God requires that governments, also, do the difficult task of defining what are the justifiable uses of its military and, on occasion, using that military to justifiably protect its citizens. To me, this is self-evident and biblical.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm
Who said this?
"Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "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."
St. Thomas Aquinas
The Summa Theologica
OF WAR (FOUR ARTICLES)
http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/SS/SS040.html#SSQ40A3THEP1
You quizzed us about the mystery author of the quote about waging war for the purpose of establishing peace. Rats, I was out of town so I couldn’t respond before you gave us the answer. I can’t restrain myself on this one. Here is the quote again:
"Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "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."
Now compare Aquinas to Greg Boyd:
There is something profoundly “unrealistic” (and, arguably, “evil”) in the common assumption that declaring a war “just” lessens its horror in any way.
Clearly Boyd cannot envision the idea of an “evil peace.” My relatives in the Netherlands still remember the “evil peace” established by the Nazis. Additionally, I do not sense that Boyd understands that by vanquishing those who instigate unjust warring that we bring “the prosperity of peace.” Again, my relatives in the Netherlands remain ever so grateful for the Allies’ victory over the German military machine. I find Boyd’s thoughts profoundly unrealistic. Please also note of the two—Aquinas and Boyd—who was working off of biblical insights and Christian tradition.
Just wondering, do any of you have any personal experience in killing anyone in battle in the real world?
●No, Gecko, not I; but I have living relatives who nearly starved to death under the “peace” established by the Nazis.
Here is another quiz—three parts. Who said this:
"...the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time."
Part two, who said this about the above quote:
"We have suffered a total and unmitigated defeat...you will find that in a period of time which may be measured by years, but may be measured by months, Czechoslovakia will be engulfed in the Nazi régime. We are in the presence of a disaster of the first magnitude...we have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road...we have passed an awful milestone in our history, when the whole equilibrium of Europe has been deranged, and that the terrible words have for the time being been pronounced against the Western democracies: "Thou art weighed in the balance and found wanting". And do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time".
Part three, who said this about the first quote:
"If ever that silly old man comes interfering here again with his umbrella, I'll kick him downstairs and jump on his stomach in front of the photographers".
1. Neville Chamberlain
2. Winston Churchill
3. Adolph Hitler
How'd I do?
For Gecko- I have never been in a war. I have never broken my leg either but I still know it hurts.
"An important issue in just cause is whether, to be justified in going to war, one must wait for the aggression actually to happen, or whether in some instances it is permissible to launch a pre-emptive strike against anticipated aggression. The tradition is severely split on this issue. Vitoria said you must wait, since it would be absurd to “punish someone for an offense they have yet to commit.” Others, like Walzer, strive to define the exceptional criteria, stressing: the seriousness of the anticipated aggression; the kind and quality of evidence required; the speed with which one must decide; and the issue of fairness and the duty to protect one's people. If one knows a terrible attack is coming soon, one owes it to one's people to shift from defense to offense. The best defense, as they say, is a good offense. Why let the aggressor have the upper hand of the first strike? But that's the very issue: can you attack first and not, thereby, yourself become the aggressor? Can striking first still be considered an act of defence from aggression? International law, for its part, sweepingly forbids pre-emptive strikes unless they are clearly authorized in advance by the UN Security Council. These issues, of course, were highlighted in the run-up to the 2003 U.S.-led pre-emptive strike on Iraq. The U.S. still maintains, in its National Security Strategy, the right to strike first as part of its war on terror. Many other countries find this extremely controversial."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
This is probably more of an issue today than Just War theory itself.
"Yale church historian Roland Bainton writes, "From the end of the New Testament period to the decade 170-180 there is no evidence whatever of Christians in the army. All of the East and West repudiated participation in warfare for Christians." Guy F. Hershberger adds, "it is quite clear that prior to about AD 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers." None of the Christian leaders in the pre-Constantinian era (ca. 313) approved of a military career for disciples of Jesus Christ.
Many early writers spoke of this pacifism. Tertullian wrote, "The divine banner and the human banner do not go together, nor the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil. Only without the sword can the Christian wage war: for the Lord has abolished the sword."(1) About 240, Origen wrote, "You cannot demand military service of Christians any more than you can of priests. We do not go forth as soldiers."(2)
Justin Martyr wrote about the year 160, "We ourselves were well conversant with war, murder, and everything evil, but all of us throughout the whole wide earth have traded in our weapons of war. We have exchanged our swords for ploughshares, our spears for farm tools. Now we cultivate the fear of God, justice, kindness to men, faith, and the expectation of the future given to us by the Father himself through the Crucified One."(3) Twenty years later, Athenagoras asked, "How can we possibly kill anyone, we who call those women murderers who take drugs to induce an abortion, we who say they will have to give an account before God one day! We are convinced that with God nothing goes unexamined, and that the body, after serving the irrational urges and lusts of the soul, will have its share in punishment. We have, therefore, every reason to detest even the slightest sin."(4) Hippolytus (ca. 218) states that soldiers who become Christians are not allowed to kill and must refuse to obey orders to kill. He also says that judges who want to become followers of the Christ must resign or be rejected by the church.(5)"
http://www.spiritualitytoday.org/spir2day/863821murphy.html
Cardinal Ratzinger: The Pope expressed his thought with great clarity, not only as his individual thought but as the thought of a man who is knowledgeable in the highest functions of the Catholic Church. Of course, he did not impose this position as doctrine of the Church but as the appeal of a conscience enlightened by faith.
The Holy Father's judgment is also convincing from the rational point of view: There were not sufficient reasons to unleash a war against Iraq. To say nothing of the fact that, given the new weapons that make possible destructions that go beyond the combatant groups, today we should be asking ourselves if it is still licit to admit the very existence of a "just war.""
http://zenit.org/article-7161?l=english
"Preemptive war: what would Aquinas say?"
"On one side we have those who view participation in war as morally suspect. Military force should therefore be resorted to only in the most pressing circumstances. It should not be deemed part of the ordinary functioning of political leadership. Opponents of this view make the case that it dangerously underestimates the weight of evil in human affairs, hindering the ability of political leaders to counter it effectively. Significantly, these rival versions of just-war theory both appeal to Thomas Aquinas as a key source for their views.
Proponents of the "presumption against war" view maintain that Aquinas's concept of just war is modeled on his more basic idea of legitimate defense. Hence they infer that the only correct rationale for resort to armed force is the purely defensive posture of repelling attack. Other reasons for "recurring to the sword" must be rejected as tantamount to aggression. Likewise, they endorse Aquinas's admonition against being overly suspicious ("when a man, from slight indications, esteems another man's wickedness as certain"). Relying on mere suspicions and not hard fact, statesmen can be tempted to condone preemptive attack. Finally, support is sought in Aquinas for the claim that the violent nature of military combat renders such action a poor instrument for the prosecution of justice. The point is not so much that the resort to lethal force is inherently wrong. Rather, it is held that warfare by its very nature is inclined to excess, and that such excess has been significantly aggravated by the destructiveness of modern weapons. Thus soldiers, even those whose intentions are good, inevitably get caught up in a spiral of violence.
In sum, the "presumption against war" interpretation places most of its emphasis on the prudential aspects of just-war reasoning. Issues surrounding proportionality and last resort occupy center stage. Principled matters of right--which earlier thinkers had treated under the rubrics of just cause and legitimate authority--are deemed to have only a secondary importance."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_2_131/ai_n6132252/pg_1
I think the (now) Pope's point (from the proceeding post) questioning the legitimacy of just war given the massive destruction of modern weapons essentially deals with the proportionality requirement. In modern warfare, it becomes increasingly difficult to satisfy the proportionality requirement, especially if properly understood:
"6. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or “worth”, the costs may the war action proceed. (The universal must be stressed, since often in war states only tally their own expected benefits and costs, radically discounting those accruing to the enemy and to any innocent third parties.)"
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2.1
I think this is where the war in Iraq becomes questionable under a just war analysis; the preemptive nature of the attack and without a doubt, the proportionality requirements both argue against a just cause.
Guy F. Hershberger adds, "it is quite clear that prior to about AD 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers." None of the Christian leaders in the pre-Constantinian era (ca. 313) approved of a military career for disciples of Jesus Christ.
●Hmmm…that is interesting. Well, what then do we do with all the pre-Constantinian soldier-saints? It is always interesting when Protestants do their “research” into church history. What do we do with the likes of the centurion who was praised by Jesus as having greater faith then anyone in Israel? What do we do with Cornelius the head of the Italian Regiment? Hershberger states that no Christian leader “approved of a military career for the disciples of Jesus Christ.” That would be nobody accept Jesus who commended the faith-filled centurion and Cornelius whom Luke states was “devout and God-fearing” and of whom the angel of the Lord said "Your prayers and gifts to the poor have come up as a memorial offering before God.” Also, Cornelius, Acts states, had a “devout” military assistant (Acts 10:7). These soldiers were commended for their virtue and not required to forfeit their arms. Here is a partial list of soldier-saints who served before Constantine was emperor while the church was persecuted.
Pre-Contantinian soldiers who are venerated as Saints:
Eustace, also known as Eustachius or Eustathius, was a legendary Christian martyr who allegedly lived in the 2nd century AD. A a Roman general, martyred in 118.
Saint George (ca. 275-281 – April 23, 303[2]) was a soldier of Greek-speaking Anatolia in the Roman Empire, venerated as a martyr.
Saint Marcellus of Tangier (Marcellus the Centurion) (d. 298 AD) is venerated as a Christian saint by the Catholic Church. His feast day is October 30.
Saint Maurice was the leader of the legendary Roman Theban Legion in the 3rd century, (d. 287) and one of the favorite and most widely venerated saints of that group. Maurice headed a whole legion entirely composed of Christians. All 6,600 of them were martyred.
Agathius, was a Cappadocian centurion of the imperial army. He was arrested for his faith on charges by Tribune Firmus in Perinthus, Thrace, tortured, and then brought to Byzantium (Constantinople), where he was scourged and beheaded, being made a martyr because he would not give up his Christian Faith (303). Constantine the Great built a church in his honor.
Saint Adrian or Hadrian of Nicomedia was a Herculian Guard of the Roman Emperor Galerius Maximian. After becoming a convert to Christianity with his wife Natalia, Adrian and was martyred at Nicomedia on March 4, 306. Venerated by Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
Saint Crescentinus (d. June 1, 303) is the patron saint of Urbino whose feast day is celebrated on June 1. Venerated as a warrior saint, he is sometimes depicted on horseback, killing a dragon, venerated in the Catholic Church.
Saint Demetrius of Thessaloniki was a Christian martyr (306) who is said to have lived in Thessaloniki in the early 4th century. During the Middle Ages, he came to be revered as one of the most important Orthodox military saints, often paired with Saint George. Venerated by Catholic and Orthodox traditions.
http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1868&Itemid=48
●In summary, Just War Theory considers a war morally justified if it is fought for a just cause as a last resort by legitimate authority acting with good intentions. The war must have a reasonable chance of success and of not doing more harm than good, and it should be conducted by moral means, avoiding, for example, deliberate attacks on civilians.
●By the way, the fact that politicians, citizens and the clergy in the United States are debating the justice of the Iraq war says a lot about Western Civilization and America in specific.
It looks like all those warrior saints but one lived after the 174 ad date mentioned in the article. I would say however that it isn't hard to understand why early Christians wouldn't want to fight for the Roman Empire. Hard to imagine that many of their wars were just wars.
Also, I know you didn't mention the Iraq war but when you raise just war as a topic, it really is the elephant in the room.
That comment was to partially present the christian pacifist point of view which your topic contrasts with just war theory. The other class of objection to just war theory is realism which says war should have no moral rules, not a Christian position at all.
In response to your point, it is true that, as you pointed out, Jesus doesn't tell the centurian to quit the army or lay down his sword.
I think a bigger problem for the pacifists in arguing that Jesus is/was a pacifist is they must ignore and disregard who Jesus is. They cite the obvious verses from Jesus (turn the other cheek, Matt. 5:39, love your enemy, etc. but ignore that Jesus was talking to individuals, not states who have authority to do justice from the same passage Matt. 5:25,26)
The problem is that Jesus is God and not some prophet. The same God of the rest of the Bible too, including the old testament. Jesus is Jehovah, the God who commanded the Israelites to go to war. David said, "Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle (Psalm 144:1)." God doesn't simply change his mind.
There are also commands to defend the weak and assist those who are attacked. Psalm 82:3-4 says, "Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked." It is hard to come up with a pacifist interpretation of this injunction. According to a Jewish translation, Leviticus 19:16, reads, "You shall not stand by [the shedding of] your fellow's blood. I am the Lord."
Finally, "To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven...A time of war, And a time of peace (Ecclesiastes 3:1,8)"
You have to disregard quite a bit to be a christian pacifist.
Here is a statement explaining the "presumption against injustice" viewpoint from the same article;
"Proponents of the more robust version of just-war theory maintain that Aquinas never sought to limit the resort to armed force to simple self-defense. He did in fact think that occasions may arise when offensive war is warranted--to regain things wrongly taken, to thwart and punish organized evildoing, or to protect innocents from harm. Not only self-defense against actual attack (second use of force), but even a first use of force (offensive war) may be justified when it is the most efficacious response to wrongdoing. It has been argued for example that the Allies would have had good reason to initiate hostilities against Nazi Germany in 1936, when (in flagrant violation of his treaty obligations) Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland. On this understanding (as articulated by thinkers such as Aquinas, Vitoria, Suarez, Grotius and others in the classical just-war tradition), the distinction between defensive and offensive force does not reduce to the distinction between just and unjust war. To the contrary, limiting force to strict defense would have the undesirable effect of paralyzing action in the face of an unjust status quo or a dangerous military threat. In this interpretation, just cause remains the paramount consideration. Matters of prudential concern (proportionality, last resort, and so forth) should be subordinated to deliberations about just cause."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1252/is_2_131/ai_n6132252
The two positions have been posted here. The article continues with some other apt observations and also discusses the commonality between the two positions.
"Timbo, sorry this is private, don't see how to send it as an open message. I actually prefer an open message, gets a hell of a lot more responses. I bow to your studied knowledge of history. I am not interested enough in this religious stuff to use up what little time I have left to do that kind of research. To every rule there are exceptions, and I am well aware that a lot of christians from clergy to poor farmer who opposed Hitler's war. You forgot the famous one from a German Priest, sorry can't recall the name, who said, when Hitler came for the Homosexuals, I wasn't a homosexual, so I did nothing. When he came for the Jews I was not a Jew so I did nothing. When He came for me, there was no one left to help. (terrible paraphrasing, forgive me) There can be no doubt that Roosevelt wanted into that war, partly because of the diminishing Depression of that time. The Japanese gave him the opportunity he was looking for. Europe could have prevented that war, you say so yourself, but they didn't. Why? Yes Europe was full of what the Jewish People call Righteous Gentiles, (I think) who saved a lot of Jewish lives, Wallenburg of Hungary was one, and Schindler of Germany. Were they the rule or the exception? Thomisticguy's question was about Just War. Israel fought one in 1967, and 1973. Russia fought one against Hitler. I suppose any war that stops Evil is Just. If you do not understand Christianity's historic animosity to the Jewish People, check out Islam, they state it explicitly. But you have to understand it, in order to recognize what the Moslems are screaming, and why. In any debate one must always be aware of Ad Hominem. I take a given and extrapolate back to its beginnings, and I am usually correct. Generally this is called thinking. Of course I can be wrong, and so can you. Religion is BS to begin with, so anything that extends from that premise is equally BS. Sorry, but that is the way it is. I didn't invent that idea, I just recognized it. Keep these cards and letters coming, I love 'em.
Frankie "
I will only say this- the article makes some factual assertions that form the basis of the writer's opinion that are subject to debate if not plain wrong. He argues that Iraq had WMD production and assisted terrorists. The writer also works for the Bush administration too. Hmmm. I have to consider the source.
I also believe that the last 2 Popes came to the opposite conclusion. I posted comments by (now) Pope Benedict yesterday to this effect.
Its probably better if we don't get into all this as you suggested.
at any rate, It sounds like the discussion has been going strong... I have no other offerings at this time.
I think Timbo and I must have the same books in our library
ron
Couple of questions: Do you recommend that the US send troops to Zimbabwe and take out the evil dictator who is raping the land and leaving his citizens in poverty? What about the poor in my city - should we take armed force to take from those who have plenty esp. those who have make their fortunes on the backs of the poor? I think Andrew Carnegie should have been strung up and quartered by your interpretation of these verses. Somehow I don't think you would agree. I think we need a little more exegesis here before we use verses like this a 'proof-texting' for a just war theory.
It looks like all those warrior saints but one lived after the 174 ad date mentioned in the article. I would say however that it isn't hard to understand why early Christians wouldn't want to fight for the Roman Empire. Hard to imagine that many of their wars were just wars.
●Notice the quote you are referring to…
Guy F. Hershberger adds, "it is quite clear that prior to about AD 174 it is impossible to speak of Christian soldiers."
●I do not see how Hershberger can possibly be right. Note that Eustace, was—amazingly (amazing to us)—a Roman general. He was martyred in 118. However, Hershberger is clearly ignoring the Christian Roman soldiers mentioned in the Bible. In Luke 3 a group of soldiers asked John the Baptist what they needed to do. He tells them to be satisfied with their wages and not extort money. John was what we would call “hardcore” about morality, but there is no sense that he had any problem with God-fearers, in their preparation for the Messiah, serving as soldiers. Both Matthew and Luke tell the story of the centurion who amazed Jesus with his faith. Jesus mentions nothing about his profession other than to commend him for understanding of military-like authority. In Mark’s gospel (Mark 15) the first person to confess that Jesus as the Son of God was a Roman centurion. Cornelius, as I have already mentioned, is declared by Scripture and the angel of the Lord to be “upright and God-fearing.” Please contrast this with the Christians in Ephesus of Acts 19 who came under conviction and burned their magic books as a way of renouncing their ungodly former practices. Nothing like this is even remotely mentioned about Cornelius. In fact, in Acts 15 the whole encounter with Cornelius’ household (including other Roman soldiers) is recounted by Peter as a glowing example of Holy Spirit’s supernatural expansion of the kingdom.
You wrote: You have to disregard quite a bit to be a christian pacifist.
●Agreed.
You quoted: To the contrary, limiting force to strict defense would have the undesirable effect of paralyzing action in the face of an unjust status quo or a dangerous military threat. In this interpretation, just cause remains the paramount consideration. Matters of prudential concern (proportionality, last resort, and so forth) should be subordinated to deliberations about just cause."
●I agree with the “robust-version” of Just War Theory. I certainly do not think that Aquinas (nor Augustine) would have limited Just War to “simple self-defense.” I think history proves that aggressors are exceptionally good at playing cat and mouse until they have all of their forces in place to devastate others. It is rare in history that an aggressor blatantly waves a big flag warning everyone that they are about to carry out a major offensive. From their perspective, such a thing would be suicidal. Consequently, the magistrates must take seriously the “just cause” of protecting their citizens.
●Okay, I’m going to show my personal “bent” regarding this particular issue. Remember, I’m a former extreme liberal. At the national level, for instance, I get perturbed with those who A) want the average citizen to depend upon the police for protection; and B) also want to disarm law-abiding citizens (i.e. believing the 2nd Amendment refers to a state militia). In most cases what this means is that the police will arrive in time to put yellow caution tape around your body. Okay, there you go.
I did not mean that those verses are the end of the analysis. Certainly, if I happen upon a woman who is being raped, I am justified in coming to her defense, even if that means harming the attacker.
In your examples, the harm is disproportionate to the gain. One would not use force simply for financial gain or as a means to enforce some social justice. On the other hand, I think those verses command us not to stand by passively and allow some significant harm if we can do something to prevent it. Violence is the last resort however.
I wanted to follow up on your crime example. In California, a person is entitled to use self defense if the expected harm is imminent and the force used must be reasonable (a kind of proportionality).
Future harm or the threat of future harm doesn't justify the present use of force to protect oneself or another. Also, if I punch you, you are not justified in pulling out a gun and shooting me. I think this is an application of just war theory in the law of interpersonal contact.
I like what the Aquinas article said about preventive attack. The idea caused "Hugo Grotius, the most systematic of all the classical just-war theorists, to issue a strong caution against preventive war. Grotius conceded that the specter of a future attack might legitimate a preemptive action if it could be shown that the danger was immediate and certain. Still, he also insisted that "fear of an uncertainty cannot confer the right to resort to force." Using armed force preventively, solely to eliminate an adversary's ability to inflict future harm, he deemed illicit. It would punish crimes not yet committed, perhaps not even planned, and would make fear a principle of action in international relations, thereby opening a Pandora's box of anticipatory first strikes. "That the possibility of being attacked confers the right to attack is abhorrent to every principle of equity," he wrote. "Human life exists under such conditions that complete security is never guaranteed to us."
"Just war theory is not a settled doctrine. It is a field of critical ethical reflection. That's why there are as many just war theories as there are just war theorists. So, rather than allow traditionally accepted (yet highly contested) theoretical principles dictate what is required to justify the use of armed forces, let your first lesson in just war theory be one which you teach yourself in a simple introductory exercise of reflection: Start by thinking of a paradigm case or prime example from history which strikes you intuitively as being an instance of an ethically acceptable, or perhaps even laudable use of armed forces. And ask yourself what makes it so. If you can neither think of a single example in history, nor imagine any possible future instances of the justifiable use of arms, then you may be an absolute pacifist. If you cannot think of a single ethically condemnable act of warfare, and you "love the smell of napalm in the morning," then you may belong to the realpolitik camp. If you can think of some limited class of ethically condemnable instances or forms of warfare, and your head is swimming with great examples of ethically acceptable and even laudable warfare, then you may be a relatively hawkish just war theorist. If your head is swimming with historical examples of condemnable warfare, and you can think only of a relatively limited class of ethically acceptable instances, and few or no laudable ones, then you may be a relatively dovish just war theorist (like me). The theoretical task of the just war theorist is to figure out what sets the ethically acceptable and laudable examples apart from the rest. (Posted 8/30/05)"
source: http://www.justwartheory.com/
So where on the continuium of the just war theory are the various commentators who are commenting on this blog? Where do we see the Old and New Testament on the continuium suggested by this author?
I like what the Aquinas article said about preventive attack. The idea caused "Hugo Grotius, the most systematic of all the classical just-war theorists, to issue a strong caution against preventive war. Grotius conceded that the specter of a future attack might legitimate a preemptive action if it could be shown that the danger was immediate and certain. Still, he also insisted that "fear of an uncertainty cannot confer the right to resort to force." Using armed force preventively, solely to eliminate an adversary's ability to inflict future harm, he deemed illicit. It would punish crimes not yet committed, perhaps not even planned, and would make fear a principle of action in international relations, thereby opening a Pandora's box of anticipatory first strikes. "That the possibility of being attacked confers the right to attack is abhorrent to every principle of equity," he wrote. "Human life exists under such conditions that complete security is never guaranteed to us."
●Okay, while I agree with Grotius on the general principle that “using armed force preventively, solely to eliminate an adversary’s ability to inflict future harm” is illicit, I also think this reasoning can be used to overlook Aquinas’ and Augustine’s central principle in regard to a “just cause.” Here is what Aquinas says:
Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "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 and Augustine do not assume that a nation must be attacked in order to have a just cause. The central principle is the rectification of an injustice (making “amends for the wrongs inflicted” or restoring seized property). So, yes, attacking an adversary simply because it poses a possible threat is not avenging a wrong and does not qualify as a just action. However, in my view, those nations that pose a threat usually do a lot of saber rattling and belligerent activity before they do something extraordinary. Generally I think they do these things to test the resolve of their opponents. If anything, it is my view that Western democracies do a lot of “navel-gazing” and self-examination in the face of repeated acts of injustice before they are willing to act. Then they often act indecisively which complicates the problem. Here is a fascinating objection and reply from Aquinas:
Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matthew 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Romans 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.
Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."
●I pray that what Aquinas and Augustine were reflecting upon is not well understood anymore. Do moderns (including Christians) living in our therapeutic culture really believe that people can have an “evil will?” Do moderns think that when lawlessness is not “vanquished” that there arises a “guilty impunity?” Do modern Christians believe that there is nothing “more hopeless than the happiness of sinners?” Do modern Christians believe there is such a thing as punishing the wrongdoer with a “kindly severity?” It is my opinion that modern Christians might find these brilliant medieval theologians…well…medieval (derogatory). I find them imminently biblical and accurate.
So where on the continuium of the just war theory are the various commentators who are commenting on this blog? Where do we see the Old and New Testament on the continuium suggested by this author?
●First, Ron, I’ve got to say that you often provide a fascinating way of looking at an issue. I appreciate this very much. Okay, where would I put myself? Theologically I would place myself with Aquinas and Augustine—you probably figured that. This probably means that I have a much more medieval view of these matters. However, since I believe that the medieval period was the highpoint of Western Civilization, I don’t consider “medieval” to be a derogatory label. I simply point to the Gothic Cathedral as an architectural embodiment of medieval culture and ask others to compare it to the modern equivalent (say the Mall of America). I think the comparison favors Aquinas and Augustine.
●Historically, my view is that Western democracies have generally been very tepid since WWI. This, I believe, has caused much more mischief than advancement. There is a general loss of certitude in the West. Some see this as good. I think it spells disaster. This, however, does not mean that I think democracies should start lobbing bombs. So, in short, my head is swimming full of condemnable injustices carried out by totalitarian regimes and free lance mercenaries of every political and apolitical stripe. Most of these have been unopposed by Western democracies. Therefore, they will grow in frequency.
Generally I think that everyone has done well in representing their positions and I have little to add but I will share my opinions on what has been said as I apply it to my own principles.
I would say that I agree with the concept of Just War Theory if not the practice in all applications. What I mean is, sometime I think JWT has been applied to rationalize war for other political and financial means. It is a well established historical fact that the crusades were a response to Islamic attacks in Christianized countries. Certainly one would argue that the military response was justified, but the cost of the response had to be further justified through certain clear political and financial gains. What I mean is, the nations further from the invasion point would have been less likely to get involved had there not been financial and political gain to be had. England, for example, received certain political incentives to enter the war and also had a major financial benefit of being able to take part in the spice trades. This laid the foundation for England to move from the backwater and politically weak nation to a leading super power.
It should also be noted that once the New World was discovered the Crusades fell out of favor. The need to secure the spice routes was diminished significantly as other means to Asia were opened.
I believe that all wars are motivated first and foremost by political and financial reasons. The leading difference between a nation that has some form of JWT that they apply to the decision of going to war and one that doesn’t is that they will consider if the gains they might have are worth the cost and will also try to only enter into wars that have other humanitarian purposes even if those are secondary motives.
The downside is that some places that we should get involved with because the humanitarian needs are so high we tend to ignore because there are no other gains we might have and the war doesn't cost us anything if we aren't involved. There are several nations in Africa, for example, that we have allowed to practice Genocide and outright Anarchy at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, if not more, but we have not done anything more than send protectors for the supplies we send yet we have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq even though the standard of living is significantly better for the Iraqi citizens verses, say Somalia, which we ignored for so long and only sent a pittance when we did get involved.
I guess what I'm saying is this, if we are going to police the world, then we should do so fairly not focusing on the neighborhoods that give us the most political clout and tax dollars so to speak. Otherwise, I think we should basically pull out everywhere. I find great fault in the system when the people that are suffering the most are left to suffer quietly because they can't offer us enough to justify the cost of war even if the war itself is more justified than what we are currently involved in.
I know I posted information from several different positions on the issue in order to generate some discussion so a quick read may be confusing. I did identify a position that I align with however. I used the name from the article- the "presumption against war" position which I think aligns mainly with the "dovish just war" theory.
I can see situations where, under the "hawkish" analysis, a country could preemptively attack another under dubious arguments based on potential future harm. It leaves too much discretion to use force as a tool when I think it should be the last resort. I think the criteria gets a little murky and becomes easier to manipulate in the "hawkish" analysis.
I think all just war theories agree on this. "Both stand opposed to the doctrine of raison d'etat in which war is viewed as simply another way to advance the national interest. Like Aquinas, neither side would deny that there is a "presumption against war" if this means that war necessarily requires justification. Whenever punishment is meted out, it must first be established that it is in fact merited." (From the Aquinas article again.)
Some wrong is required to be committed against the injured country. It ought to be identifiable and is a pre-condition to attacking.
In my view, Aquinas still requires some act (fault or wrong to be avenged) by the offending country and not just the potential to do future harm. I don't see how this can be read to justify preemptive attacks.
Also- interesting questions at the bottom of your post. I will try and respond when I have a bit more time. Rushed now.
Thank you for your kind words.
Just as there is a continuum on the 'just war theory', there is a continuum on the 'Christian pacificist theory'. I am at work right now and do not have access to that. When I find it, I will post that - I think we might find that the continuum on the Christian pacificist theory actually aligns with the just war theory.
ron
I was interested in the "Pre-Constantinian Warrior Saints."
There does seem to be a general assumption by - should we say - baby boomers who were of age in 1968 to view the disciples of Jesus as counter-cultural hippies, rather than people who were willing to call on the forces of the state for protection when the situation warranted.
There is the implication in Luke that the profession of soldier was not antithetical to the Christian life. At Luke 3:14, the following is said about John the Baptist:
Admittedly, that is John the Baptist, but the fact that this tradition is preserved may be a clue that the Gospel was being preached to those who were soldiers and were not expected to cease being soldiers.
Off the top of my head, I am not real clear about the extent of Christian penetration into the Roman army. We know - or think - that Mithraism was very popular with the Roman military, and it has often been argued that Mithraism was Christianity's strongest rival.
Presumably, it would have made sense to evangelize soldiers, who, after all, would not be indifferent to the promise of salvation.
I didn't know about the "Theban Legion" before this thread, but this site describes them as "The soldiers of the Theban Legion (a detachment of Coptic Christians in the Roman army) were all martyred because they refused to worship the idols of Emperor Maximian."
Likewise, Diocletian and Galerius both initiated their persecutions with demands that Christian soldiers leave the Roman army (which makes sense if one is going to start oppressing their fellow Christians.)
In other words, it appears that there was a strong Chritian presence in the Roman army prior to Constantine, which is consistent with the notion that being a soldier was not considered "unChristian" (and, for what it's worth, while I can recall a lot of prohibited things in the Didache, military service is not one of them.)
It's hard to argue with the idea that attacking countries because of their potential to do future harm - and without their having caused or intended to cause actual harm - would epitomize injustice.
But, on the other hand, I can't imagine that Aquinas or JWT would require that a country wait until it has received the first blow before attacking.
I'm thinking of a situation where one country has declared war on another country. I can't think of any reason why the latter country shouldn't drive into the second - if it can - and disrupt the other's strategy, particularly if it makes for a shorter war. ( I think that's the war that Bismark engineered the Franco-Prussian War, or maybe the Austro-Prussian war, or both, so that Prussia had war declared on it and mobilized quicker than his enemies.)
Of course, that then leads to the situation of a de jure declaration, such as where the first country amasses forces on the border of the second in preparation for a sneak attack. Would the second countries' preemptive action be unjust? Cf. Nazi Germany and Poland.
And what if the first country engaged in a de facto campaign of hostility, such as shooting at the second country's peace-keeping forces, supporting assassination attempts against former leaders of the latter country, and breached peace accords between the two countries, as was the case with Iraq in 2002?
Somewhere along the way, JWT can be "gamed." It certainly has to be applied "prudently", which is why the determination of whether there is a "just war" is inherently a "prudential judgment."
Peter cited some examples of an imminent attack such as Poland/Germany, or France or Holland or any of the countries that were overrun. I would suggest that had we discovered the Japanese carriers closing on Hawaii, attacking them would have been justified before they launched an aircraft. That is an imminent attack.
On the other hand, a country like Iran acts provocatively towards the United States and has for sometime. They are obviously hostile in rhetoric and more tangible ways as well. Nevertheless, in my view, there would not be justification in the United States attacking Iran.
Under the more "robust" criteria, one could make a case that war with Iran is justified.
This is a closer case perhaps and might be worth additional comment?
The downside is that some places that we should get involved with because the humanitarian needs are so high we tend to ignore because there are no other gains we might have and the war doesn't cost us anything if we aren't involved. There are several nations in Africa, for example, that we have allowed to practice Genocide and outright Anarchy at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives, if not more, but we have not done anything more than send protectors for the supplies we send yet we have tens of thousands of troops in Iraq even though the standard of living is significantly better for the Iraqi citizens verses, say Somalia, which we ignored for so long and only sent a pittance when we did get involved…I guess what I'm saying is this, if we are going to police the world, then we should do so fairly not focusing on the neighborhoods that give us the most political clout and tax dollars so to speak.
●Just War Theory relates to the justice of an individual country and not to policing the world. This implies what we now call “national interest.” This terminology, unfortunately, is often used pejoratively as if magistrates shouldn’t have as their primary responsibility the protection and safety of their own citizens. Additionally, as noted above from Aquinas and Augustine, monetary recompense of defrauded citizens is a “just cause.” Frequently today people throw their hands up in the air and cry bloody murder if it is suggested that it is a “just cause” to act militarily against a foreign state that somehow defrauds another country or its citizens (“no blood for oil”). This sort of moralizing, in my view, has no basis in natural or biblical law.
Regarding the Crusades as profit-making endeavors: Professor Thomas Madden of St. Louis University, one of the leading scholars on the Crusades notes the following…
This is a fairly old-fashioned view, now largely rejected by scholars. It was based on a Victorian experience with colonialism that has no relationship at all to the medieval Crusades. We now know that crusading was almost never profitable. Crusaders often impoverished themselves and their families in order to pay for their expeditions. Whatever booty they received (and the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder) was more than offset by their expenses. The vast majority of Crusaders had no interest in remaining in the East, but rather fulfilled their vows and returned home as soon as they were able. (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1670308/posts)
In my view, Aquinas still requires some act (fault or wrong to be avenged) by the offending country and not just the potential to do future harm. I don't see how this can be read to justify preemptive attacks.
●I cannot disagree with this; however, what I was attempting to note is that in the “real world” states like Iran or North Korea make many, many provocative and unjust actions against its “enemies” without necessarily attacking them. Again, I believe that Western democracies have both lost their certainty (nerve) and are generally very tepid in their response to totalitarian regimes and terrorist organizations. For instance, if the U.S. were ever to strike Iran (unlikely in my view), it will be decried as “preemptive” but will in actuality be after years of unjust provocation including funding terrorist attacks throughout the world.
Peter wrote: Somewhere along the way, JWT can be "gamed." It certainly has to be applied "prudently", which is why the determination of whether there is a "just war" is inherently a "prudential judgment."
●Agreed. Additionally, my opinion (if you haven’t figured it out yet) is that Western democracies are not in any danger of fixing the JWT to allow themselves to begin building empires. The pendulum has swung to the other side.
Gecko wrote: Up until Peter's contribution, all we have seen has been Marxist lacunar discourse disguised as a form of twisted Christian thought.
●I think we have just experienced a preemptive ICBM attack from Salt Lake City via Hawaii!
Regardless of the actual cost and benefits, there were ulterior motives to the crusades that made it easier to generate support. Moreover, while those directly involved in the conflicts did not benefit, there were those that very much so benefited. As I stated, England was able to establish itself as a super power because Spain, France, and Italy were weakened and because they brought back war spoils of knowledge not just financial and trade route gains.
It is much like the current war in Iraq. It is well known that the cost of the war will far outweigh any gains we might expect to generate, but many companies have been making insane money as a direct result of our involvement. Interestingly, these companies have strong ties to the current leadership.
There are other places that are a greater threat to our national security, including Iran and Korea which were termed part of the "Axis of Terror" by our President along with Iraq before the Iraq invasion, but these countries have been left alone ... why?
They don't offer the financial benefit to the individuals that are receiving these bonuses from the war.
All wars are fought to achieve ends other than those defined by a JWT otherwise they would be avoided if possible and ended at the earliest possible moment. A JWT does a lot to limit the action of a country but so does simple logic. The US, for example, must know that they can't just invade country after country to build and empire. We only attack with reason, perceived or real, because the rest of the world is watching. The use of JWT is ultimately about proving the war is justified to the American people and to the world at large.
Now, I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Certainly it is good to limit war, but it doesn't inherently make us better than other countries that avoid war for fear of retribution from a mightier nation. Our reasons for going to war or not what I find appealing in a JWT. I actually think the concept of avoiding collateral damage when possible to be the more compelling argument for JWT as we know it.
"I believe God requires that governments, also, do the difficult task of defining what are the justifiable uses of its military and, on occasion, using that military to justifiably protect its citizens. To me, this is self-evident and biblical."
But what constitutes an injust war needs to be distinct from those not following the will of Christ. Or, like Hitler and using your logic, once we have initially subdued a nation, do they then become our citizens to protect? This seems to be the justification in Afghanistan and Iraq, self evident and biblical.
In hindsight, when Christian nations have gone to war and succeed in their goals, would this not be the will of God?....The will of God certifies with success that which has been just or at least what He can abide.
I think this implicates the two other areas of JWT that we haven't really discussed. So far, the focus has been on jus ad bellum or just cause. The other two areas of JWT are jus in bellum or justice in war- the moral conduct of combatants that forms the basis for the Geneva and Hague conventions and finally jus post bellum or justice in the termination of war. We call it "exit strategy" in the U.S.
Posted here are the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy descriptions of each respectively:
2.2 Jus in bello
Jus in bello refers to justice in war, to right conduct in the midst of battle. Responsibility for state adherence to jus in bello norms falls primarily on the shoulders of those military commanders, officers and soldiers who formulate and execute the war policy of a particular state. They are to be held responsible for any breach of the principles which follow below. Such accountability may involve being put on trial for war crimes, whether by one's own national military justice system or perhaps by the newly-formed International Criminal Court (created by the 1998 Treaty of Rome).
We need to distinguish between external and internal jus in bello. External, or traditional, jus in bello concerns the rules a state should observe regarding the enemy and its armed forces. Internal jus in bello concerns the rules a state must follow in connection with its own people as it fights war against an external enemy.
There are several rules of external jus in bello:
1. Obey all international laws on weapons prohibition. Chemical and biological weapons, in particular, are forbidden by many treaties. Nuclear weapons aren't so clearly prohibited but it seems fair to say a huge taboo attaches to such weapons and any use of them would be greeted with incredible hostility by the international community.
2. Discrimination and Non-Combatant Immunity. Soldiers are only entitled to use their (non-prohibited) weapons to target those who are, in Walzer's words, “engaged in harm.” Thus, when they take aim, soldiers must discriminate between the civilian population, which is morally immune from direct and intentional attack, and those legitimate military, political and industrial targets involved in rights-violating harm. While some collateral civilian casualties are excusable, it is wrong to take deliberate aim at civilian targets. An example would be saturation bombing of residential areas. (It is worth noting that almost all wars since 1900 have featured larger civilian, than military, casualties. Perhaps this is one reason why this rule is the most frequently and stridently codified rule in all the laws of armed conflict, as international law seeks to protect unarmed civilians as best it can.)
3. Proportionality. Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. They must restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are usually seen as being out of proportion to legitimate military ends.
4. Benevolent quarantine for prisoners of war (POWs). If enemy soldiers surrender and become captives, they cease being lethal threats to basic rights. They are no longer “engaged in harm.” Thus it is wrong to target them with death, starvation, rape, torture, medical experimentation, and so on. They are to be provided, as The Geneva Conventions spell out, with benevolent—not malevolent—quarantine away from battle zones and until the war ends, when they should be exchanged for one's own POWs. Do terrorists deserve such protection, too? Great controversy surrounds the detainment and aggressive questioning of terrorist suspects held by the U.S. at jails in Cuba, Iraq and Pakistan in the name of the war on terror.
5. No Means Mala in Se. Soldiers may not use weapons or methods which are “evil in themselves.” These include: mass rape campaigns; genocide or ethnic cleansing; using poison or treachery (like disguising soldiers to look like the Red Cross); forcing captured soldiers to fight against their own side; and using weapons whose effects cannot be controlled, like biological agents.
6. No reprisals. A reprisal is when country A violates jus in bello in war with country B. Country B then retaliates with its own violation of jus in bello, seeking to chasten A into obeying the rules. There are strong moral and evidentiary reasons to believe that reprisals don't work, and they instead serve to escalate death and make the destruction of war increasingly indiscriminate. Winning well is the best revenge.
Internal jus in bello essentially boils down to the need for a state, even though it's involved in a war, nevertheless to still respect the human rights of its own citizens as best it can during the crisis. The following issues arise: is it just to impose conscription, or press censorship? Can one curtail traditional civil liberties, and due process protections, for perceived gains in national security? Should elections be cancelled or post-poned? May soldiers disobey orders, e.g. refuse to fight in wars they believe unjust? A comprehensive theory of wartime justice must include consideration of them, and not merely focus on what one may do to the enemy. For some of the worst atrocities in wartime have occurred within, and not between, national borders. Some states, historically, have used the cloak of war with foreign powers to engage in massive internal human rights violations, usually against some disfavoured group. Other states, which are otherwise decent, panic amidst the wartime situation and impose emergency legislation which turns out to have been complete overkill, and which they later regret and view as the product of fear rather than reason.
2.3 Jus post bellum
Jus post bellum refers to justice during the third and final stage of war: that of war termination. It seeks to regulate the ending of wars, and to ease the transition from war back to peace. There is little international law here—save occupation law and perhaps the human rights treaties—and so we must turn to the moral resources of just war theory. But even here the theory has not dealt with jus post bellum to the degree it should. There is a newness, unsettledness and controversy attaching to this important topic. To focus our thoughts, consider the following proposed principles for jus post bellum:
1. Proportionality and Publicity. The peace settlement should be measured and reasonable, as well as publicly proclaimed. To make a settlement serve as an instrument of revenge is to make a volatile bed one may be forced to sleep in later. In general, this rules out insistence on unconditional surrender.
2. Rights Vindication. The settlement should secure those basic rights whose violation triggered the justified war. The relevant rights include human rights to life and liberty and community entitlements to territory and sovereignty. This is the main substantive goal of any decent settlement, ensuring that the war will actually have an improving affect. Respect for rights, after all, is a foundation of civilization, whether national or international. Vindicating rights, not vindictive revenge, is the order of the day.
3. Discrimination. Distinction needs to be made between the leaders, the soldiers, and the civilians in the defeated country one is negotiating with. Civilians are entitled to reasonable immunity from punitive post-war measures. This rules out sweeping socio-economic sanctions as part of post-war punishment.
4. Punishment #1. When the defeated country has been a blatant, rights-violating aggressor, proportionate punishment must be meted out. The leaders of the regime, in particular, should face fair and public international trials for war crimes.
5. Punishment #2. Soldiers also commit war crimes. Justice after war requires that such soldiers, from all sides to the conflict, likewise be held accountable to investigation and possible trial.
6. Compensation. Financial restitution may be mandated, subject to both proportionality and discrimination. A post-war poll tax on civilians is generally impermissible, and there needs to be enough resources left so that the defeated country can begin its own reconstruction. To beggar thy neighbor is to pick future fights.
7. Rehabilitation. The post-war environment provides a promising opportunity to reform decrepit institutions in an aggressor regime. Such reforms are permissible but they must be proportional to the degree of depravity in the regime. They may involve: demilitarization and disarmament; police and judicial re-training; human rights education; and even deep structural transformation towards a minimally just society governed by a legitimate regime. This is, obviously, the most controversial aspect of jus post bellum.
The terms of a just peace should satisfy all these requirements. There needs, in short, to be an ethical “exit strategy” from war, and it deserves at least as much thought and effort as the purely military exit strategy so much on the minds of policy planners and commanding officers."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2.2
But what constitutes an injust war needs to be distinct from those not following the will of Christ. Or, like Hitler and using your logic, once we have initially subdued a nation, do they then become our citizens to protect? This seems to be the justification in Afghanistan and Iraq, self evident and biblical…In hindsight, when Christian nations have gone to war and succeed in their goals, would this not be the will of God?....The will of God certifies with success that which has been just or at least what He can abide.
●I am not sure what you mean by, “But what constitutes an injust (unjust?) war needs to be distinct from those not following the will of Christ.”
Since Christ is God incarnate then we must assume that those not following the will of Christ are acting unjustly. Why? Because God would never require a people to act unjustly—that would be evil. Secondly, I do not believe that a nation needs to be “Christian” in order to act justly. I also believe that so-called Christian nations can act unjustly. This is why—as Peter noted—civil authorities must use prudential judgment when engaging in military action. By “prudence” I am meaning the moral practical virtue.
●Regarding whether or not there is an obligation to protect the citizens of a subdued nation: I agree with Ralph Peters in Never Quit the Fight that we need to get past the idea of “if you break it, you have to fix it.” I do not believe that it is required by JWT that a nation has to repair what was broken of an aggressor’s economy, etc. This, in my view, is an unwarranted “tax” and burden placed upon the innocent nation’s citizenry. This can lead to the insane scenario that a belligerent power views its aggression as a “no-lose” endeavor. In other words, even if you lose, the opposing power(s) will repair your nation. Classically, losing in war was a huge disincentive to aggression.
●Regarding the idea that “God certifies with success that which has been just;” I believe in this as a principle as one built within the nature of things by God. However, in a “particular” situation this does not mean that every just cause automatically succeeds. “Universally” injustice cannot succeed because it is actually an evil which is nothing.
●By the way, interesting insights and questions.
These standards are really not self-evident without the Christian foundation and represent radical thinking. It is significant I think that the Nazis rejected this Christian morality in favor of extreme Darwinism for their justification of their acts. The result are atrocities that are unequaled in the modern era.