Christian philosophers centuries ago invented the concept of a "just war" in an effort to render war-making less capricious and unlimited. Purely defensive wars with nearly assured positive outcomes which take no noncombatant lives, etc. came to be called "just."
The historian in me finds that both sides always name their cause as just.
We "blew it" in Iraq by naming our "preemptive invasion" just, thus devaluing the concept. How can we criticize India or Pakistan when either decides that "preemptive war" suits them?
Using historic criteria, it is hard to see how "just war" concepts apply to our current venture. There may be "necessary" defensive wars, but whoever observes the "corollary" losses of civilian life and the devastation that follows even what winners call "victory" would have a hard time calling Iraq "just."
It's not a "just war," it's "just war."
Please e-mail On Faith if you'd like to receive an email notification when On Faith sends out a new question.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook


