It’s Just War – Oxymoron or Moral Criteria?

21 March 2004
By Jim Weller

Two score and twelve weeks ago, our moral forfeiture brought forth upon this continent a new nationalism, conceived in infamy and dedicated to the proposition that all men, all women, and all nations, are created equal under the supremacy of the armed forces of the United States of America. Now we are engaged in a great war against any and all insurgencies, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met in a fragile sanctuary on this anniversary, reflecting together upon the implications of our present state of interminable war.

I’ve used the term, “Wehrmacht,” to refer to the United States military-industrial complex, particularly under our present political leadership, with reference to the Nazi war machine of the last century. “Wehrmacht” was the name of the German armed forces during the Third Reich, 1933 to 1945. The direct translation is “defense forces.” I think there are deeply disturbing parallels between that and the 21st century militarism of the United States, which has now committed itself to the most egregious campaign of international aggression since the time of the Second World War. I am reminded, too, that history is an assiduous teacher – when we have forgotten its lessons, it repeats them.

I know my use of this language has deeply affronted at least one of my friends, who spent much of his life in the service of the U.S. military. Perhaps it offends others as well. I don’t mean to impugn your honor, or your personal worth and dignity. I do mean to confront the evil that is done when we justify war as an instrument of political power. Our nation’s present and past uses of its overwhelming military force are an abominable affront to human morality, by which all humanity is profoundly aggrieved.

I will try to avoid confusing abstract issues with concrete human conditions. War and peace, in the final analysis, are not abstractions. They are matters of life and death. They are brought about, in every instance, not by abstract causes, but by the intentional agency of free will.

I assert, in concrete terms, that war is inherently evil. To willfully engage in war is to justify concrete evil. To disavow war – and that is what I call each and every one of us to do – is to proclaim the moral imperative of “just peace.” To theorize “just war” is not only to abstract, but to falsify the truth. It is no less false than to aver, as in George Orwell’s doublespeak, that “War Is Peace.” War and peace are dichotomous. One cannot conclude logically from the other. The one can arise only in negation of the other. To negate the common good of peace, as our government has done, is to make a shameless mockery of the moral value of justice.

A growing number of people today believe that war is always wrong; that no circumstances ever justify one nation’s taking up arms against another. Is this view ethically sound?

To attempt a final analysis of terms in justification of war, for all times and all circumstances, would be more than futile; it would be useless. The premise here is rather that the present era is circumstantially different from other times when nations have engaged in war. For that reason, moral rationales that may have pertained in the past are no longer fitting. The view is that present day conditions of international warfare are such that no real-world war can be conducted under the kind of circumstances that once might have allowed so-called “just war” theory to stand to reason.

Traditional justifications, in this view, are no longer deemed reasonable, because the primary standards of “just war” theory, those of “just cause,” “non-combatant immunity,” and “proportionality of means and ends,” can no longer be upheld.

Traditionally, the only justifiable “causes,” that is the reasons and purposes, for war, are (1) national defense against foreign aggression, and (2) intervention in behalf of a nation subjected to foreign aggression (or counter-intervention against an unjust international intervention, or international intervention in warfare between mutual aggressors.) Under any circumstances other than these instances of justifiable defense, the entry into warfare, for any of a multitude of conceivable “reasons of state,” has been regarded as constituting the crime of international aggression.

In traditional moral reasoning, “just cause” is a necessary condition, but is not itself sufficient, to justify warfare. Additionally, the ways and means of waging war must not violate the rights of non-combatants to life, liberty, and property. The fighting – the damage, destruction, and killing – is to be limited to the persons and properties of the embattled armies. Only military personnel and war materiel are supposed to be put in harm’s way.

Further, the extent of the violence engaged in and the severity of the damage done is to be constrained by a sense of just proportion, such that, in meeting the requirements of defense, the force employed does not exceed that which is reasonably necessary to counter aggression. Escalation of warfare into excessive or disproportionate violence, though begun in justifiable defense, itself becomes criminal aggression.

Traditional proportionality in “just war” theory also includes the idea of a “reasonable expectation of success.” When violent means resorted to in defense, resistance, or retaliation cannot reasonably be expected to bring about an end to the aggression defended against, the defensive warfare cannot be justified as “proportionate” in its violence. In other words, defense would be futile, senseless, reckless, and wrongful – just as wrong as the aggression itself. Indiscriminate violence in defense against aggression would be just as wrong.

Since the advent of mechanized warfare and especially with the predominance of hugely destructive means of long-range bombardment, wars waged by national armies and armadas cannot be engaged in without the unconscionable harm to non-combatants now euphemistically called “collateral damage.” The recent development of so-called “smart weapons” notwithstanding, all warfare now entails much more damage and destruction of “civilian infrastructure,” and killing and injury of “innocent civilians” – often deliberate and intentional – than it does strictly military casualties. Moreover, the technical facility with which modern military attacks and counterattacks are carried out, with relative impunity, by far-away commanders and war equipment operators, make conventions in restraint of violence problematic, if not meaningless.

Furthermore, the complex world we live in is so interconnected economically and politically, and so thoroughly militarized, that it is virtually impossible for a “just cause” for war to be clearly distinguished. When, even in case of response against open aggression or atrocity, are the supposedly just motives of the rulers of powerful nations unmixed with avarice, ambition, or obdurate ideology?

These are some of the reasons why people have come to believe that international warfare is categorically unjustifiable and immoral, and I am not hesitant to identify myself as one of them. Let’s examine the obligations, ideals, and consequences involved in this moral analysis.

Ideologues intent upon war invariably argue that the first obligation of a national government is to defend its citizens against attack by potential enemies. This presumes, of course, the condition of enmity, of clear and present danger of attack by armed adversaries. Such conditions undoubtedly do exist in today’s world. And the duty to resist aggression is a traditionally recognized element in “just war” theory.

Nevertheless, these conditions of enmity do not exist for no reason. Threatening nations always perceive themselves, usually correctly, as being threatened, and actually aggrieved, by the enemies armed against them. War is the actualization of mutual enmity between armed forces prepared for war. Thus, as Albert Einstein is said to have commented, “You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war.”

A state of constantly potential warfare can only be ended, and war prevented, by ceasing the aggravations that create international enmity. A powerful nation’s conversion to waging peace would entail its discontinuation of the cultural and economic antagonisms that prevail among human societies, and, contrary to prevailing policies of state, its voluntary national disarmament. Only the powerful nation that would dare to be first to beat its swords into ploughshares, and then give them to the poor of the world, can lead the community of nations toward peaceful coexistence.

In contradiction of the conventional obligation to “protect and defend” the nation by military preparedness, it is the truer obligation to humanity to prepare for peace by ceasing to threaten, aggrieve, and oppress. “National security” would be better attained through conversion to an ethic of cooperation and reconciliation, instead of competition and conflict, that is, to “love thine enemies,” and “love thy neighbor as thyself.”

When it comes to supposedly moral “justifications” of war in concrete practice, rather than abstract principle, two diametrically opposing ideals, war and peace, are conflated. Lasting peace is never achieved by means of war. The assertion that peaceful ends can be brought about by warlike means is a tragic lie. War accomplishes only death and destruction; winning a war can bring about only a temporary remission of armed conflict.

The waging of war begets more war. The nation that commits itself to readiness for war upholds war as its ideal. Only a nation that is committed to no war, and which actively seeks the good of others, instead of pursuing its own gain at the expense of others, can promote the ideal of peace. The powerful nation which is ready, willing, and able to wage overwhelmingly destructive warfare cannot serve as a peacemaker. Its defining ideal is war, not peace.

Demagogues exhorting populations to accept and support war invoke other oft-supposed obligations and ideals, but these are never more than cynical misuses of common human aspirations. Their traducements assert putative obligations in support of universal ideals, such as defending human rights against abuses, preserving individual freedom and prosperity, and promoting democracy. These are cruel charades.

The consequences of war in the 21st century can entail no such ideals, but only their opposites. These inevitable outcomes are central to the conviction that war, in any circumstances, is no longer a moral option. The potential harm to humans and their habitations, and to other living things, in any war carried out by a major military power today, ranges from catastrophic to apocalyptic. It can only result in enormous human grief and suffering, and a certainty of future violent conflict. The effects of war today are unmitigated evil. No good can come of it. Assertions to the contrary, that beneficial ends can come of the terrible means of modern warfare, are damned lies.

Among the obligations, ideals, and consequences involved in these considerations, the consequences are of the greatest concern. The consequences of war negate the positive obligations of national defense and national security, and the ideal of peace. The consequences of war obviate the falsely invoked ideals of the demagogue. Only the monstrous ideal of war itself, of military domination, which is concomitantly held paramount and denied by its greatest promoters, is met with in the consequences of war.

Is it ever really the case that no alternative to war is available to powerful modern nations? I think not. There are always a myriad of policy choices for resolution of international grievances. A will to peace is the only way to prevent war. Peace is the way. War, in reality, is no more the moral last resort reserved in “just war” theorization. It is the proximate resort of the will to coercive political power.

The end of a moral analysis is to decide which choice is most ethical. The answer is plain and simple. It is “to be or not to be,” that is, to be a warlike nation employing evil means for inhumane purposes, or not. A “just” war is no longer possible, if indeed it ever was.