Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
"Just war" or just more war?
Q: Is there such a thing as a 'just war'? In his Nobel speech, was President Obama right to speak in these theological terms about war? He also stated that 'no holy war can ever be a just war.' Do you agree or disagree?
No war is ever wholly just; at an important level, all wars are merely wars. The only war that can ever be completely just is the war that is never fought.
War as it is fought is the organized violence of one nation against another for reasons that are never wholly disclosed, and certainly are more about power than justice. Have there ever been "just wars"? Not completely, no. President Obama acknowledged, in his Nobel speech, that the "concept of just war was rarely observed."
Just War theory exists, and has existed in some form since the 5th century, however, because it is imperative that people and nations be able to impose restraint on armed conflict--there is a real difference between total war, where civilians themselves become the weapons of war, and targeted military action, especially limited military action in defense of the nation or in defense of those who cannot defend themselves.
President Obama was right to use theological categories such as Just War and also Just Peace. His use of these terms marks the return of long-standing, normative moral theory to American foreign policy. The previous administration held nothing but contempt for historic moral norms such as the limitations imposed by Just War theory, or the prohibition of torture as described in the Geneva Convention.
The reason the President used Just War theory in his Nobel speech is to make the point that force, if used at all, must be limited and be conducted according to certain fixed standards of behavior. "To begin with, I believe that all nations--strong and weak alike--must adhere to standards that govern the use of force."
Just war is not a synonym for "Holy War." In fact, they are polar opposites. The historic criteria for how to limit the destruction of war may make a war more a "Just War" than not. But "Holy War" is the most virulently destructive kind of war there is because those who believe that God is on their side see no need to act with restraint, to limit casualties, to reduce violence to the minimum and end the conflict as soon as possible. Those who pursue "Holy War" believe that they can save the world through violence--and they are dangerously wrong.
No war brings humanity closer to God. In fact, General William Tecumseh Sherman was right when he said, "War is hell." And Sherman's march through Georgia, scorching the earth as he went, shows he knew what he was talking about. Hell is the farthest you can get from God. Ironically enough the total war pursued by those who think war can be "holy" achieves that same state. Holy War actually becomes "war as hell."
American foreign policy, under the direction of President Obama, is changing course away from a naïve faith in militarism and toward an understanding of the limited value of force, and the immense value of dialogue, diplomacy and engagement. But I think we all know we have a long way to go to really effect this change.
By
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite
|
December 21, 2009; 7:18 PM ET
Save & Share:
Previous: Welcome to Holy War Land |
Next: Can war or violence ever be necessary?
Posted by: sulu1 | December 28, 2009 12:34 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Whatever war we're in, that is a just war. And whatevery war someone else is in, that is an unjust war.
Thus, it has always been.
Posted by: DanielintheLionsDen | December 17, 2009 5:13 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Gratifying though it may be for "just peace" theologians to find President Obama borrowing language from said theory in his Nobel peace prize acceptance speech, the upshot of such utilization still appears to be a justification for increasing war.
If even church theorists will not speak peace (and mean it), who will? Something about loving, not killing one's enemies…even while speaking truth to power.
Posted by: wbj323 | December 17, 2009 2:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is hard to call the war against Iraq self-defense but this is what they did. By that logic you can call almost anything self-defense against an enemy who may be thinking ill of you, or may not.
It is impossible to call Afghanistan a response to an unprovoked attack when we helped build the network of religiously inpired freedom fights that we used to make Afghanistan our holy war with the Soviet Union and then for some reason they went rogue.
Nationalism usually has a national God bestowing permission but still the soldiers usually bear the moral weight of knowing what the war was, something usually not talked about by those who weren't there who really do not want to know. they are our sacrificial lambs
Posted by: Wildthing1 | December 15, 2009 2:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
There are still signs desribing that march posted on road sides,throughout "the south".
Is it a reminder of war that came, or the rebuilding that followed?
Those that take a peaceful,quiet path in life, can find themselves in the middle of war's that they never knew existed or only heard rumors about.
One can't speak peace unless one understands and experiences war. Only then can diplomacy and engagement work.
The Rev. King?