Does Obama really want a “Just War”?
Having read the transcript of the President’s Nobel Peace Prize, and his mentioning of his rationale for Just War in Afghanistan, I wonder if the President looked up the true origin of the phrase.
The meaning of Just War comes from the Old Testament, specifically the Book of Deuteronomy. In the 20th chapter, scripture reads:
If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
Too often, people including our President, use words in their remarks while misusing their meaning. I seriously doubt anyone would follow such rules of warfare today… and the left was appalled when former President Bush used the word “crusade.” Just Wars are brutal, nasty and don’t last for eight plus years. President Obama might want to find other words to use in the future.
8 Responses to “Does Obama really want a “Just War”?”
Great speech, seriously.
Uh, sorry, but that obscure OT reference is not 'the meaning' of the phrase Just War.
I'd recommend doing a LOT of reading up, starting with some of the Roman philosophers, St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and modern Catholic theologians, plus some secular humanists who have advocated similar principles.
A summary of the Catholic doctrine can be found in the catechism:
Some of this was in Obama's elaboration in his speech today, so it's a pretty safe assumption that he was advocating for these kinds of principles and not an Old Testament use of the term.
On a secular level can we just go back to calling it a war of necessity?
Well, for one thing the term 'war of necessity' only speaks to one aspect: the decision to go to war (or not) in the first place. Just war theory/doctrine applies to that as well as the conduct of war.
And secondly, referencing 'just war' theory is more clear IMO because it invokes all of the philosophical writings that have defined the principles over a couple of thousand years (refining the principles with each great philosopher who took up the issue.) Using a more newly minted term like 'war of necessity' would require the speaker/writer to define his own use of that term. I don't think the term itself is more self-explanatory: is it necessary to go to war to defend an ally? To stop an aggressor? Only in retaliation for a direct attack on one's own homeland? Etc.
Of course in both cases, really, the speaker/writer still has to show how he/she reconciles the principles with his/her own view of a particular situation. Obama described WWII, the Balkans, and the first Gulf War as just wars, for instance, and implied that the current Iraq War is not.
Interestingly from the Catholic perspective, Iraq was argued both ways. Fr. Richard Neuhaus, a conservative Catholic who has been described as an unofficial advisor to GWB, argued that it was a just war while the Church leaders came down on the other side and said that the preemptive nature of the causus belli would set a dangerous precedent.
Anyway, I'm not sure it's useful to try to choose your suggested phrase in order to be more secular. Even though the principles of just war are part of Catholic tradition and teaching, they're not strictly religious teachings and can be supported just as well by secular thinking (and has been supported by secular humanist philosophers.) The only difference is the foundation, whether one believes that 'just-ness' derives from God or if it's simply the state of morality that all people should seek.
Semantics. Call it what you want, I give up.
I lied, I'm not giving up. Obama coined it so argrue with him. His definition/words to vets:
“This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity,” Obama told the annual Veterans of Foreign Wars conference — cautioning that the insurgency would not be defeated overnight. “Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which Al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”
The whole post was about semantics, no?
I guess. Sometimes pretty speeches and verbal jousting can obscure meaningful action and actual intent.
- The fog of language hides many a demon.- Unknown