Just War

Is War Holy Just, Holy Wrong and Does It Really Matter?

Background

There are three basic classifications of war. The first is the ideology of pacifism, which holds that all war is wrong. The second is a holy class of war, in which followers perceive they are acting justly on behalf of “God”. And finally, there is Just War, an analysis of which is the purpose of this piece.

The notion of a doctrine of a just war started to evolve around the 7th century with Aquinas. There are two areas of just war theory. The first is revolves around the moral reasoning and rationale and the second around how the war may be fought. Six conditions must be met in order for a war to be considered “just cause”1:

One should notice that just cause is entirely a subjective matter. For instance, what is a last resort? That is a subjective line. Last resort encompasses different things to different people and is not an effective barometer for a just cause.

A just war also can cease being a just war because of the methods used during war, covered under the following principles:

As these principles are mainly derived from a “Christian-Western” world view, it expresses ignorance, willful or not, that much of the world is neither Christian nor western. However, many in other cultures still subscribe to the principles of just war.

Three Religions

Three religions color the debate of just war thinking. The first two of these, is Christianity and Islam, which have sects that fall into every view on war imaginable; they believe in holy/just (lumped together for this discussion because it is reasonable to assume if one posits that one fights a holy war, then it is also just) war and pacifism. There are many pacifist sects, but it is safe to assume the majority of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic tradition subscribes to some just or holy war tradition.

Finally, there is the case of evolution. Calling it a religion is controversial. It is however, merely a hypothesis on the macro level. It is however, an established theory on the micro level. Step number four of the scientific method both require faith in both evolution and creation (theistic predominantly). It says that repeatable experiments must be performed so that hypothesis may be tested by other scientists. The fact is macro evolution nor creation is scientifically testable, therefore they both encompass a religion (or a faith). Evolution purports that life evolved by chance and is governed by a “survival of the fittest mechanism”. The consequences of this are an amoral philosophy. This leads to relative standards of justice which essentially render just war irrelevant because morality becomes shifting sand.

World War II - Europe

World War II was essentially an extension of World War I, and the terms imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. The primary principals in this conflict were Neville Chamberlain (United Kingdom), Winston Churchill (United Kingdom), Joseph Stalin (Soviet Union), Adolf Hitler (Germany) and Franklin Roosevelt (United States).

Chamberlain, to his credit, did everything he could to diplomatically avert a war. He believed the allies imposed unjust punishment on Germany after World War I, so he attempted to meet some of Hitler’s demands2. The most notable was allowing Hitler to annex the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia. However, Hitler took the whole of Czechoslovakia, trust was broken, and appeasement was rapidly drawing to a close. Chamberlain then made an agreement with Poland, testing German aggression. Therefore, Chamberlain definitely made war with Germany a last resort. However, politically, he was damaged goods and Winston Churchill soon would take the helm.

Churchill was a staunch opponent of appeasement all along and advocated action over Czechoslovakia, in which Chamberlain was unmoved. Then the shift to protect Poland came and Chamberlain agreed. Churchill was a preeminent voice advocating an alliance to defeat German aggression before it was too late. Churchill was selling the war to stop aggression first, and then after 1940, he sold the war as the liberation of Europe3. The war initially was a just war by western standards. The war was for a just cause to end Hitler’s tyranny over Europe. The intention to preserve individual countries freedom and independence can be viewed as just. However, the just war became unjust because the reasonable chance of success turned into abject failure. The rationale of engaging Hitler was saving Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslovakia, etc.) from the Reich of Hitler. However, in the end, Western powers were content to cede the same territory to Stalin, whose reign of terror surpassed Hitler’s. Therefore, Churchill fought for the war on goals that were not achieved.4

Roosevelt tried at first to remain a neutral country, respecting the will of the overall population not to attempt to involve itself in Europe’s problems. As the European situation continued to deteriorate President Roosevelt finally begin to realize action was need and took incremental steps toward war. First there was the Lend-Lease Act, which allowed the president to help arm those fighting the Axis powers of Italy, Germany, and Japan. Then the United States froze German, Italian, and later Japanese assets in the United States. Then Roosevelt implements an oil embargo against the axis powers. And finally, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.5 Then, finally, the United States declared war on Japan; and Germany and Japan declared war on the United States. From the United States perspective, the war was entirely just. The United States exhausted policy alternatives to avoid involvement. Liberation of European democracies and war with Japan to avoid a worldwide threat can be argued to be just. It was a matter of defending allies, defeating a tyrant, and self-defense.

Stalin was not interested in just war (or any war), but rather self-interest. He signed a non-aggression pact with Hitler. There was territory he was interested in, that he thought would be safe from the axis powers reach. After Western Europe was done killing itself off, he thought the capitalism and fascism would collapse under its own weight. This was the view of communism. In the end Stalin struck an incredible victory: The control of Eastern Europe behind an “Iron Curtain”. Stalin’s initial entry into the war was entirely just. It was a matter of self-defense and it was a last resort, as Germany had attacked. It became unjust, however, in that the countries he helped liberate from Hitler, he took absolute control of himself.

Hitler very much viewed his aggression as just. He viewed the surrender and the terms of the end of World War I as unjust toward Germany. It can be argued that there is much truth to that argument. Germany was forced to pay in land and resources following World War I, contributing to hyperinflation and an overall crippling of the economy. He viewed his German nationalism and desire to unite all German peoples as just. He however, took no diplomatic initiative toward his aims. He was determined to reverse the outcomes of World War I himself. His aims were unjust in that he wanted to graft other countries into the Reich without any say whatsoever. The whole debacle became unjust in the methods he employed, both domestically and internationally (i.e. concentration camps and blitzkrieg).

Hitler employed “God” many times in his discourse (“Mein Kampf” and assorted public speeches). However, his methods were the logical child of an extreme Darwinism, as evidenced from the following quote:

“Herr Hitler takes the view on principle that it is not the job of

the party leadership to ‘appoint’ party leaders. Herr Hitler is…

convinced that the most effective fighter in the National Socialist

movement is the man who wins respect for himself as leader through his own

achievements. You yourself say in your letter that almost all the members

follow you. Then why don’t you take over leadership…? … If you don’t like

it change it, don’t come to us for orders, if you are stronger than your enemies you’ll win”6

How the war was fought gives rise to questions as to whether World War II could remain a just war despite the cause. Civilians were major targets on both sides. The allies repeatedly carpet bombed German cities and the Germans repeatedly “blitzkrieged” and bombed allied civilians. This however, does not affect the justice of the war. Civilian destruction was done to get both sides to capitulate to each other and demoralize one another. The stakes were too high to give such high thought into mass destruction. The control of Europe as well as the world balance of power was at stake. Morality and justice had nothing at all to do with World War II. The moral goals clearly were not met (defending Eastern Europe from tyranny) and the costs outweighed the benefits, even should the moral objective have been accomplished.

United States-Iraq

For Saddam Hussein, the latest war in Iraq was about self-defense against the lone remaining superpower. The war had nothing to do with justice, but in gaining prestige in the Arab world by standing up to “The Great Satan”. Given the absence of large amounts of weapons of mass destruction, it appears that by defying United States / United Nations demands, he was merely thumbing his nose at the United States.

George W. Bush’s reasons for war seem to have evolved over time from the ether. The main reason stated to the American public and the international community was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and intended to use them. Usually, a sense of justice requires a party actually committing some criminal act before enacting punishment or retribution. At worst, an act of prevention should be conducted as Israel did by taking out Iraq’s budding nuclear program in the 1980’s: Destroy it and get out. The justness of enforcing current international resolution is a compelling one. However, were all diplomatic means used? Weapons inspection worked reasonably well during the 1990’s. Therefore, if Iraq gave the go ahead for inspections to resume, that should have dissuaded war; inspections are far more morally preferable than war.

However, the reasons evolved from WMD possession, to regime change, and to promotion of democracy. Pre-empting could be a compelling argument for just war. The problem is however, that WMD’s have been the subject of numerous resolutions by the United Nations. Therefore, the issue is enforcement and not preemption7. Entering a conflict based on either enforcement or preemption is tricky due to no concrete information on an imminent WMD threat.

Regime change is a notion that is generally inconsistent with just war principles. It is interference into national sovereignty. Regime change may be the consequence of a just war but should not be a rationale for hostilities. The rationalization of regime change sets a precarious precedent. It is consistent with the amoral Darwinist philosophy which could be phrased as “I’m stronger and I want something, so I am going to change your regime”.

Spreading democracy around the world sounds like a noble goal. However, Islam is not compatible with this idea. Islam revolves around submission to Allah. One must posit the question: Is a “democratically elected theocracy” a democracy? Clearly it is not. Using the same theory, because Hitler was democratically elected, his government was a democracy and not a dictatorship. The spread of democracy is not a justification for war. It is the promotion of a political culture, which legitimately could be called Imperialism.

On the other hand, while Saddam may have provoked the United States by thumbing his nose, this war was about self-defense. The United States attacked, and Iraq made a feeble attempt to defend itself. It is wholly compatible with just war in any religion (except in the pacifist view) to fight back.

Conclusion

The conclusion this author has reached is that a war may attempt to be justified in any way, but it is really not morally justifiable. It is sometimes necessary and nothing more. Justice can be redefined in each generation. For example, slavery was “just” in the early United States. Does any serious thinker really argue in this generation that slavery is just? Justice becomes shifting moral ground without the presence of absolutes. The philosophy of Evolution makes morality irrelevant. The end result of evolution is essentially “What if my morality is more evolved than yours” and because of natural selection only the strongest survive. Therefore, the end justifies the means. And when the end justifies the means, the notion of how a just war, and therefore the just war, goes out the window. When this happens the security of the state overrides any moral concerns. Survival is the predominant theme.

What about self-defense one might ask? Once a war starts, any and all war becomes self-defense by definition. If one gets attacked what is the response? It is defense. Thus, the reasons for a just war can apply to both sides at different times. Even in going to war in a last resort, once conflict escalates, morality is tossed overboard as winning becomes the primary objective.

It is appropriate to ask the question: Was nuclear warfare moral to put an end to World War II? Some argue that it took very few lives compared to what would have been lost should the war have continued. Others argue that to use such firepower is immoral. The bottom line is the state made a determination to act, though the morality has been and is much debated. In decisions of war, it is state concerns that outweigh the moral.

Finally, when Darwinism, Christianity and Islam are considered, any war can be just in the name of one’s religion. Darwinism for a struggle in a survival of the fittest, and Islam and Christianity in the name of God; after all, fighting for God is just, isn’t it? All war is immoral; it is a product of man’s selfishness. However, it is sometimes merely necessary but never holy.

Works Cited

1 “BBC – Religion & Ethics – The Ethics of War”. http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/ethics/war/jwintro2.shtml. The British Broadcasting Corporation.

2 Spartacus Educational. “Appeasement”. http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWappeasement.htm. Spartacus

Educational.

3 “World War II Commemoration”. http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_churchill.html. Grollier Online.

4 Buchanan, Patrick J. “Was World War II Worth It?”. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/printer-friendly.asp? ARTICLE_ID=44210. WorldNetDaily.com, Inc. May 11, 2005.

5 “World War II in Europe Timeline”. http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/timeline/ww2time.htm. The History

6 Hughes, Matthew and Chris Mann. Inside Hitler’s Germany. New York, New York: MJF Books, 2000.

7 Blankenhorn, David, Jean Bethke Elshtain, Francis Fukuyama, William A. Galston, John Kelsay, Robert Putnam, Theda Skocpol, Max L. Stackhouse and Paul C. Vitz. “Pre-emption, Iraq and Just War”. http://www.americanvalues.org/html/1b___pre-emption.html. The Institute for American Values. November 14, 2002.