As we reel in the aftermath of the Syrian situation, most focus on which team scored or gave up the most points, Team Putin, Team Obama, Team Republican, Team Democrat. But, as we direct our gaze to the scoreboard and squint through cloudy punditary prisms to try and make out the numbers, we miss a greater opportunity.
We stand at a point in history where we may have averted military action with unknown consequences on the other end. That is a point where we should recognize that we will be better served in the future if we can arrive at an understanding of when acts of war are, or are not justified, and thereby avoid some of the confusion we recently experienced. War, for purposes of this discussion, is not limited to lengthy engagement or troops on the ground but includes any act of war.
Traditionally there are three basic forms of justifiable war: Defensive War, War in Defense of an ally usually in conjunction with a mutual defense treaty, and war directed by international consensus. In the past three quarters of a century, we have attempted to add several new classifications of just war. These definitions may be incomplete and may, from time to time, overlap, but include: Preemptive War, Humanitarian War, Regime Change War and Punitive War. This article argues for a return to a more circumspect view of just war.
Defensive War is the most clearly justified and generally involves a direct attack by another nation or outside force on one’s own territory or physical assets. This is the most common definition of just war. For most of our history we justified war as defensive based on attacks on America or her assets. The Maine, the Lusitania, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin are examples. Yes, some of these may have been put-up jobs, but there was at least an attempt to frame justifiability in terms of defense following direct attack on our territory or assets.
War in defense of an ally is best exemplified by America’s entrance into the European theatre of World War II. These types of wars can also be put-up jobs like coming to the defense of Texas and not stopping until we controlled what is now the entire southwestern United States. Wars of international consensus, in today’s world, would be largely confined to UN authorization, a difficult hurdle given the various veto powers and interests represented on the Security Council.
With traditional rationales for just war sometimes failing to account for what certain leaders believe is a cause for war, we have embarked on an intellectual stretch to expand the definition of what constitutes a just war. Given the difficulty of containing warfare and preventing put-up jobs under the traditional just war definitions, the difficulty increases exponentially with the addition of other classes and forms of “just war”.
Preemption as a rationale for war is not new, but gained credibility as a result of Israel’s use of this approach after its national inception. Objectively viewed, it has also been used as an excuse for unauthorized territorial expansion that continues to the present day. In its purest form, say a military strike to take out a nuclear weapons facility in a hostile country, preemption may have considerable appeal.
But there are not clear lines that define the necessity of preemption. If you don’t initially believe this, please recall that Bush II attempted to justify the invasion of Iraq in part as a preemptive strike. Those WMD’s, once manufactured and mobile, could be then used against us, our assets or our allies. We don’t want the wake up call to come in the form a mushroom cloud, remember?
If preemption is going to be a justification for war, then it must be defined with precision. It must, at the very least, avoid speculative assertions such as the possibility of a mushroom cloud in our future. But, better, in my opinion, would be the elimination of preemption as a rationale for war. If you believe an enemy is arming to attack, prepare to defend, rather than preempt. Preemption requires absolute certainty not only of armament but also of intent to attack. Those two certainties are rarely the case.
Regime Change Wars are the removal a leader or political component that we find either offensive or not acting in our interests or consorting with our adversaries. The easiest reach for proposing a regime change war is the dictator who oppresses his/her own people, i.e. the offensive tyrant. The problems with regime change wars are many. First, who decides which regimes need changing if there is no international consensus? Second, is a regime change war really a proxy war between competing international interests? It often is. Third, what will the replacement regime be, e.g. would al Qaeda related leaders replace Bashar al Assad? Without international consensus, regime change wars are an invitation to abuse, and should not constitute a rationale for just war.
See international consensus as justification, above, to address atrocities like genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Humanitarian Wars are those that tug at the heart strings and seem to demand justice. This is a relatively modern invention sometimes referred to as benevolent militarism. The “just war” rationale is that whatever collateral damage, death and destruction, may be caused by the acts of war, it will prevent even worse atrocities that would occur in the absence of war.
But, understand that humanitarian wars are, at core, wars of aggression, not defense of self or ally. Humanitarian wars also assume that the death and destruction inflicted by the war will be less than the death and destruction resulting from not going to war. This is necessarily speculative, and just war cannot, in my view, be based on speculation and assumption. Here’s an interesting piece from The Christian Science Monitor on humanitarian war once you get past the first 5 or 6 paragraphs which are more economic and background material.
Both humanitarian wars and regime change wars necessarily include nation building to be ultimately successful.
Punitive wars seek to punish a regime for an act or series of acts in hopes of deterring future similar acts by that regime. This relatively new rationale for just war assumes that other nations are our children to be spanked when they misbehave, a dangerous arrogance subject to abuse. It does not depend on international consensus, does not depend on defense of self or allies and is not designed even to be preemptive in nature. And if the punitive acts of war do not have the desired deterrent effect or result in unintended consequences, then what? One presumes a regime change war complete with nation building.
Well, where does all this leave us? That probably differs from individual to individual. My thoughts may well not be yours. But I do not accept the trendy justification known as humanitarian wars, the efficacy of punitive wars or the advocacy of regime change absent defensive necessity or international consensus. On preemptive war, fence sitting may be in order. I understand, but cannot endorse. To my thinking the traditional views of just war provide more than enough excuse for war, intrigue and manipulation without expanding the field. Defense, defense of allies and international consensus. That’s enough, and those rigorously defined and proven.
A few last thoughts before closing. In all contemplation of war, the first instinct should be not war. In all contemplation of war that first instinct should also include the exhaustion of all alternatives even in defensive war situations. In all contemplation of war, if the advocates of war need more than one approach to convince different people based upon different sensibilities, they probably are not describing a just war. And always look for other excuses, other agendas that may be served by war. They almost always exist.
graphic via shutterstock.com
Contributor, aka tidbits. Retired attorney in complex litigation, death penalty defense and constitutional law. Former Nat’l Board Chair: Alzheimer’s Association. Served on multiple political campaigns, including two for U.S. Senator Mark O. Hatfield (R-OR). Contributing author to three legal books and multiple legal publications.