Don't Worry - It's Just War

Don’t Worry – It’s Just War

An essay by Bill McKenna   ©2012

The Greeks and Romans gave us good illustrations of how building a military security system can be a tricky proposition.  We’ve discussed the pitfalls of alliances and rivalries, and the overwhelming cost of maintaining overwhelming military superiority.  If I stopped my thesis at this point, we could conclude that the use of a grand army to conduct belligerent state policy was appropriate state policy.  We only need the means of controlling our military and building a force proportional to getting the job done.  There’s a catch.  You knew there would be a catch, because this is Bill’s Peace Blog.  I’m not really going to tell you that peace is good because war is risky (well, OK, I think I have made that argument, but that’s not what’s important).

War is bad.  When I say bad, I’m referring to evil, and the concept of a universal set of ethics.  If you’re Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Jainist, Sikh, or attach yourself to any set of beliefs with a corresponding morality code you know it; killing is bad, wanton destruction is bad.  If you’re an atheist or irreligious, you’ve still got an innate sense of morality and, think that killing is wrong on a basic human level.  If there are any true nihilists out there who don’t go along with this most basic of ethical tenets, I have not met any.  Mental illness is beyond the scope of tonight’s essay, but sadly, we should address the mentally ill population in a peaceful society at some later date.

Well, I think I covered everyone in the last paragraph, but I specifically didn’t mention Christianity by name.  I’m singling out Christian thought tonight, because were starting on our philosophy section, and first up is an early Christian ethicist, a true heavyweight, and I have a problem with his world view.

Saint Augustine is one of the most profound thinkers in Christianity.  His ideas of a universal church, salvation, and ethics, provide guidance for the Christian philosopher throughout the Middle Ages, and are as good a link from the teachings of Christ, to man in a modern society as you are likely to find.  So why am I picking a fight with one of the most revered figures in history?

I have two reasons for picking an argument with Augustine.  The first is his theories on something called ‘just war’.  The second reason can wait.

Augustine did not invent the concept of just war.  There are discussions about the ethics of war thousands of years older than Augustine, but Augustine is the ‘go to’ guy when you want to discuss just war now, because he eloquently explained and codified his thoughts.  Later, Thomas Aquinis refined the ideas more, but I’m trying not to rehash Philosophy 101, so we’ll leave Aquinis alone, unless you’d care to comment.

Just War theory is a bridge between pure individual morality and the needs of a society.  In its simplest form it just makes the case that it is sometimes necessary to conduct a war, when the consequences of not conducting the war are more evil than the war itself.  The just war must not be waged for gain, and it must be wages to restore a state of peace.

So you’re probably thinking that this is common sense, and you can see how it had applied in the twentieth century against totalitarianism very easily.  How could I have a problem with such a sensible approach to the conduct of nations?

I have two problems with just war:  First, it lets us ‘off the hook’ far too easily in the lead up to war.  Secondly, it’s a convenient propaganda vessel for anyone who wants to try the case in the court of public opinion.

So there’s my first argument with Augustine, and now I’ll let him off the hook.  The two issues I have with Augustine’s philosophy are both related to human frailty.  If just leaders conducted their state affairs within the ethical tenets laid out by Augustine (and Aquinis), then just war would work much better in practice, and, in fact, would probably not be used much because the world would be a lot more peaceful.  So in the sphere of pure ethics, Augustine is still OK, and in a few nights, I promise to bring Immanuel Kant to his rescue, to square up this whole piece of the Augustine problem.

Still, we’re stuck in the real world, where leaders let causes of war stew for far too long, and suddenly someone unjustly lashes out, only to be stopped by our just warriors.  Then there is the unfortunate human trait to justify one’s own actions regardless of their merit.  In the case of a leader going to war, we unfortunately know that God’s will is too often invoked, and plain, ugly belligerence is sold as a just war.

The second case critique is the simplest to discuss, and it has the simplest response.  When a leader invokes the ethical right or need to conduct a war, citizens of good conscience have to deliberately appraise that invocation, and stand against false claims.  As a citizen of the US, I am sad to say that we collectively failed to do our duty in this regard in 2002, as the Iraq War loomed.  It failed to meet many of the ethical hurdles to be considered ‘just’, the most grievous of which was our pre-emption, yet we allowed the president to invoke the morality of the war.

The first problem – knowing that we are doing enough to deflect a war before our involvement becomes necessary and therefore just-is much more difficult to grapple with.  I feel that we are not doing enough right now to avoid a war with Iran, but should Iran someday launch a war do I then look back in retrospect and say that it’s OK to conduct that war now?  I don’t know how to answer that.  In fact my inability to answer the question about justification for a war in which the maintenance of peace prior to that war was insufficient introduces my second (and last) argument with Augustine.

Here’s my issue:  In a perfect world, we will look several generations into the future, identify our differences, and make plans to address them long before they lead to a war.  In reality, such foresight is tremendously difficult, the time frame to consider can be immense.  Warring ethnic groups often have unresolved grievances that are hundreds of years old.  Perhaps we can only unravel some of these issues post bellum.

We have to be careful too about the weak olive branch.  There was a time when we could have avoided the Second World War.  Unfortunately, it was probably prior to the First World War, although better foresight in 1919 may have worked.  Certainly by the mid-1930’s Hitler was a proximate threat, and I am hard pressed to think of a non-military solution to the evils of Naziism available by then.  So, when Neville Chamberlain traded the Sudetanland for false  peace, he deserved every bit of scorn he received. 

So in a just war scenario, when have you done the right amount of work to prevent that just war?  If you say that you have only done enough when there is no war, you have then disavowed just war as a concept, because it should have been prevented.  This is an extremely high standard, yet you come into a logic trap if you accept less than perfect prevention.  Those who hold the extreme view have the moral high ground, but also have an impossible standard to bear.  These people are pacifists by definition, and, I would argue, that only those keeping the high standard of avoiding all war can be described as pacifists.  The logic trap that you are either a pacifist or a realist who accepts just war is my second problem with Augustine.  The division seems unfair.

As described, I regrettably can lay no claim to pacifism.  I see that there really can be a just war in Augustine’s ethical construct.  Fortunately, Kant will help us out of this conundrum as well, but we’re not quite ready for A Critique of Pure Reason. 

So, in concluding a really long essay tonight, I don’t really have a gripe with Augustine.  As the Augustinian Order is partly responsible for my oldest daughter’s college education, I’m glad I will be able to give him the enormous respect and admiration he is due.  Yet, there’s a lot of ground to be covered, and just war is a tough concept to deal with when you’re trying to get to peace

Comments?  Are you having nightmares of sitting through Philosophy 101 again?  I hope not.  I also hope I didn’t misrepresent Augustine or Aquinis, although if anyone of you with a contact at that Augustinian College forwards this to a member of the Order, you may be setting me up for a real education (I’m OK with that BTW).

I’m tired and past 1500 words.  I’ll leave you now so you can ponder how I might take up Hobbes’ Leviathan.  Good night, and Peace,  Bill