A Discriminatory and Proportional Just War
Homework from March 19, 2002, Seattle University ethics course, received an A-.
–
“Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just”
The Star-Spangled Banner by Francis Scott Key, 1814.
War is a living hell among men, a shameful necessity in a world where tyrants oppress and people of conscience are slain. A world cannot survive upon good intentions of universal pacifists, where inhumane wrongs occur daily. When the pacifist is slain, who shall come to stand in their place? No one; for no one would be left. Then the world would become a lonely place, empty at best. Only by a just war, where the means to a just and lasting peace are discriminatory and proportional can our un-patented blue, green life survive.
An antagonist will point out that war and even a ‘just war’ involves killing that is simply wrong and prohibited. God prohibits killing through the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ in Exodus 20:13. (CMP, 531) Our antagonist precisely tells us that life is precious and good therefore, ‘… killing is wrong because it destroys what is sacred seems to imply that killing is wrong because killing diminishes the amount of good in the world.’ (CMP, 532) Finally, the antagonist postulates, killing people ‘violates the right to life that every human being possesses.’ (CMP, 532) Our antagonist sees no discrimination or relief from the pain of death, to which they are correct, despite the proportion of one death possibly meaning saving thousands of others. Death is the ultimate finality of physical life, therefore shouldn’t the preservation of life be held higher?
An antagonist following universal pacifism such as Mohandas Gandhi had a genuine moral commitment opposed to killing. Gandhi successfully demonstrated change through weaponless marches, sit-downs, sit-ins, strikes and boycotts, fast and prayers to free India from Britain’s colonization in 1948. (CMP, 534-5) However, his fight and that of his people was against the British nation who though being Imperialist, still held respect for human life. If this non-violent fight had been to rid India of German Nazism, only Gandhi’s “spiritual victory” would remain in an India not known to us. (CMP, 535) These vast differences in enemies enlighten us to the need and power of psychological and physical coercions that are discriminatory of targets and proportional to the amount of pain and death caused.
From St. Augustine, just war is formidable with the proper call and methodology called jus ad bellum and jus in bello respectively. Jus ad bellum informs us that war is the last option when none is left by determination of competent authorities for public purposes, just cause including self-defense and protection of rights, finishing with means of war being proportional to the sorrowful undertaking given. (CMP, 543) St. Augustine’s jus in bello guides how war is to be fought with a call for “proportionality of military means to political and military ends” and “discrimination prohibiting direct, intentional attacks on noncombatants and non-military targets.” (CMP, 547) With St. Augustine’s help, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, Gregory S. Kavka defines for us a just war campaign with four criteria: “… authorized by competent authority, fought for a just cause, motivated by the right intentions, and most not cause harms that are out of proportion with the goods achieved.” (CMP, 559) Kavka’s fourth criterion brings to existence jus in bello or rules of discrimination and proportionality that must be carefully thought out and acted upon; for it is here where a just war can become, just a killing war.
When a fanatical or dedicated enemy exists with intent to destroy, terrorize, or kill, talk alone will not suffice to remove the threats they present. Words and actions must be in concert to effect a change preventing greater harms and killing from occurring upon people of innocence. If no action is taken to prevent the killing of innocents, then we ourselves are guilty of inhumanity and indifference to preserving life. In just war, we can help eliminate problems of political, social, and economic turmoil. We must be careful to be discriminatory against only the perpetrators or wrong doers and ensure that our actions against them do not escalate to involve more pain and killing that would otherwise have occurred from enemy actions.
During the 1991 Gulf War, coalition forces were mounted to remove the Iraqi Republican Guard and army occupying neighboring Kuwait. Afterwards, in late spring 1991, Gregory S. Kavka’s considered this military action “maybe” a just war for it clearly met criteria of competent authority, just cause, and discrimination. (CMP, 564) He felt that proportionality and right intentions criterion weren’t clearly defined or demonstrated. Compared to World War II mass population center fire bombings over Europe and Japan; the Gulf War’s air and ground war with precision weaponry against tactical and strategic military targets demonstrates a drastic step in improved target discrimination thereby saving noncombatants and property. Sadly, civilian causalities did occur near military targets, but given an overall military and civilian loss of a few hundred thousand in several months versus the tens of million of casualties in World War II, this clearly shows improved discrimination and proportionality of recent military actions cannot be underestimated to support a just war. Looking back, Kavka states “Indeed, if over the next decade, the Middle East is more peaceful and stable than before the Gulf War, so that it seems likely that the war was after all a proportionate one.” (CMP, 565) Given now it is 2002, humanitarian aid is available to Iraq and its neighbors, Kurdish genocide has waned, and the Middle East is as stable as before the Gulf War; Kavka himself would have to agree the Gulf War was a discriminatory and proportional just war.
At present another military action is occurring in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world to route Al Qaeda militants following “apocalyptic terrorism” leader Osama bin Laden and other like minded terrorists. (Falk 2001) These leaders are calling their troops into “an unconditional civilizational war” drawing fierce fighting and killing between all people of Islam and the West. (Falk 2001) This “war” leaves no room for reconciliation or diplomatic actions, these terrorists don’t draw distinction between military or civilian targets, they have shown capability to harm and kill others through “suicidal devotion.” (Falk 2001) The American response has been to fully retaliate against the terrorist perpetrators and their supporters through economic or trade sanctions and direct military action. This military is just; only terrorist targets are discriminated against, terrorist prisoners captured and humanly held when possible, and the force needed to route terrorist is not excessive. All the while helping open Afghani citizens to recover their distraught lives through humanitarian aid and efforts.
In closing, I agree with our antagonist that killing is wrong. However, if just discriminatory and proportional actions weren’t taken against wrongdoers and killers, then there would be no good left on our world; only evil running rampant over people of innocence. When diplomacy fails, a just war must be and can be fought when its means to an end are discriminatory and proportional.
Falk, Richard. (October 29, 2001). Defining a Just War. (retrieved October 23, 2001).
White, James E. 1997. Contemporary Moral Problems, Fifth Edition. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Recent Comments