Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Just War: The principle of Double Effect
Posted by: McQ on Friday, August 04, 2006

One of the arguments now raging, at least around here, is that about the killing of innocent civilians by the Israeli military. For some the argument is reduced to this: killing any civilians is unjustified and thus morally the Israelis are as bad as Hezbollah.

The given here is Hezbollah is "bad". And the moral equivalence is that the Israelis are just as "bad" because the civilians are just as dead as Israeli civilians killed by Hezbollah.

No one argues that Hezbollah's purposeful attack on Israeli civilians isn't morally wrong. What is done instead is to equate Israeli attacks which kill civilians with Hezbollah's attacks on civilians.

Unfortunately for that argument, the Just War doctrine's principle of double effect doesn't support the premise.

A short explanation of the Just War doctrine. Just War is a doctrine which sets conditions under which resorting to war is considered legitimate. But it also sets out rules for moral conduct which someone engaged in a Just War is expected to support and follow. Part of the argument against the war in Iraq has been founded in the Just War doctrine.

A part of the Just War doctrine is the principle of double effect. It is aimed more at the rules part of the Just War doctrine. In other words, the principle outlines parameters and conditions in which the conduct of warfare is deemed just or unjust.

Michael Walzer, in his outstanding book "Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations" does a terrific job in laying out the double effect principle as it applies to civilians and combatants in a time of war.

The principle is argued as follows:
1) The act is good in itself or at least indifferent, which means, for our purposes, that it is a legitimate act of war.

2) The direct effect is morally acceptable - the destruction of military supplies, for example, or the killing of enemy soldiers.

3) The intention of the actor is good, that is, he aims only at the acceptable effect; the evil effect is not one of this ends, nor is it a means to his ends.

4) The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for allowing the evil effect. Justifiable under Sidgwick's proportionality rule.
Walzer uses an example of British soldiers clearing a French village in WWII. That meant clearing the cellars as well. Naturally German soldiers were known to hide in them and ambush the British. So the best way to clear them was to throw a hand grenade in first. But there were civilians known to be in the village as well. So what the soldiers would do is yell out twice, and if no one answered, in went the grenade.

He goes on to tell about a particular soldier who yelled out twice, heard no reply and was just pulling the pin when a young French girl blurted something out from the cellar thereby saving her and her family's life.

The British soldier wrote later, remembering the incident, "if the young lady had not cried out when she did, we would have innocently murdered them all."

Walzer is struck by the phrase "innocently murdered", because the soldier believed that had he killed the family that's what it would have been. But as Walzer points out, the soldier was accepting risk by shouting out. Obviously his shout could just as easily have alerted any German soldiers in the cellar and given them the opportunity to come out firing. Obviously, in a strictly military sense, it would have been more prudent to throw the grenade in without warning, and few would have argued that they wouldn't have been justified in doing so. The soldier, however, among many, accepted the risk to avoid civilian casualties.

Modern warfare, except for on the sea or in the desert, always takes place in close proximity to civilians. It is as unavoidable as the sun coming up. So at best, what combatants can do is to try their very best to minimize civilian deaths. As Walzer points out, the principle of double effect is a "way of reconciling the absolute prohibition against attacking non-combatants with the legitimate conduct of military activity".

So back to our 4 points as they apply to the Israeli effort. Assume point 1 is talking about an attack on a target which is in a civilian area. A rocket launcher for instance. Taking out the rocket launcher which is firing on Israelis would be classified as attacking a legitimate target in a legitimate act of war. In that context, the act is "good in itself".

Obviously then point two is also satisfied. The destruction of the rocket launcher and crew, a legitimate act of war, is therefore morally acceptable. So far, so good.

But as Walzer points out, the burden of the argument is carried in point 3.

Starting with the first part of the point, "the intention of the actor is good, that is, he aims only at an acceptable effect."

"Acceptable effect" in that context means enough to destroy the rocket launcher and crew but not more than that. The accepted effect morally would be the utter destruction of the target. But there is another consideration which must be taken into effect as well: the location of the rocket launcher.

If it were alone in the desert surrounded by nothing but other military targets, then not many would care if you dropped a 500, 1,000 or 2,000 lb bomb on it. What ever was available would be fine. On the other hand, if it were in a civilian area and you had a choice of munitions, that which would effectively destroy the target while minimizing death to civilian would be the morally defensible munition to be used.

An important point here. The key word is "minimize". Note that it isn't to prevent the death of civilian, but to minimize them. Which brings us to the second part of point 3: "the evil effect is not one of his ends, or is it a means to his ends".

In other words, the evil effect - death to civilians - isn't something for which the combatant is striving. He's not out to kill civilians and he isn't attempting too either. His intent is to avoid them where tactically possible. But make no mistake - his mission to engage and destroy the enemy will take precedence over his attempt to minimize civilian casualties.

For example, the munitions selection criteria we talked about earlier where he chose the 500 lb bomb over the 1,000 lb bomb. Naturally he could only make that selection if both were available and he knew that the 500 lb bomb would be sufficient to take out the launcher.

But what if he didn't have that choice? What if his only choice was to withhold attacking the target because of the increased risk of civilian death or let the rocket launcher continue to attack his troops (we're assuming here he has no other means to take out the launcher). By the principle of double effect, he would be morally justified in using 1,000 lb bomb because ""the evil effect [killing civilians] is not one of his ends, or is it a means to his ends". Knocking out the rocket launcher is his end and the only available munition is the means to his end.

Point 4 mostly speaks to proportionality. Is the good effect [destroying the rocket launcher] of sufficient good that it compensates or ameliorates the evil effect [killing the civilians]? "Sidgwick's rules of proportionality" referenced by Walzer are from Henry Sidgewick, and state, it is not permissible to do, "any mischief which does not tend materially to the end, nor any mischief of which the conduciveness to the end is slight in comparison with the amount of the mischief."

A good example of the latter point is the bombing of Dresden by the allies in WWII. There was slight if any benefit to the end (victory) by that "mischief".

Applied to the Israelis it means that morally they should respond to the threat or action of the enemy proportionally. Or as we've mentioned above, do what is necessary to destroy the enemy but no more if it can be reasonably helped.

That's the argument.

When you review the actions of Israelis, given the battlefield on which Hezbollah has chosen to fight (and that's important to note - Hezbollah chose the ground, not Israel), the fact that Israel is using precision guided munitions, dropping leaflets and warning of attacks and doing only what is necessary to degrade their enemy (the Beirut airport is an example of that) speaks to their proper use of the principle of double effect. While the civilian deaths caused by the fighting are regrettable and tragic, they are not immoral under the doctrine of Just War.

Hezbollah, on the other hand, has used civilian areas (and UN outposts) to shield it's attacks and weapons purposely, fired it's rockets at civilian targets purposely and mixes freely with the civilian population counting on the scruples of its enemy to withhold fire and allow them to escape.

The civilian casualties their actions have caused, then, are immoral under the doctrine of Just War.

It is that difference which makes the moral relativism of the argument, "killing any civilian is unjustified and thus morally the Israelis are as bad as Hezbollah", bankrupt.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Thanks for posting on this, McQ. When the current Israeli-Hezbollah hostilities began I posted pretty extensively Just War theory and was appalled at how few people understood the principle of proportionality and how poorly informed so many people were on matters of ethics. Thanks again.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
That’s actually a very good analysis, McQ, right up to the point (near the end) where you ask "Is the good effect [destroying the rocket launcher] of sufficient good that it compensates or ameliorates the evil effect [killing the civilians]?" but then fail to give a real answer. Sidgwick’s proportionality refers to proportion between good and evil done, not between evil done and evil possible. It is therefore closer to your criterion 3 than 4. The Israeli attempts to minimize or mitigate the effects of their counterattack are laudable, but do not answer the question you pose - which many would answer in the negative. If criterion 4 therefore goes unsatisfied then so does the whole, and one must conclude that the Israeli actions are/were not just.

That’s not moral relativism or equivalence, by the way. Saying that two actions are not good does not mean they are equal, just as ((X < k) && (Y < k)) does not imply that (X == Y). Both Hezbollah and the IDF have acted badly - not as badly, but badly nonetheless. To say otherwise, to exempt Israel from the clear standard you’ve given because of their identity or circumstances, is true moral relativism.
 
Written By: Platypus
URL: http://pl.atyp.us
Sidgwick’s proportionality refers to proportion between good and evil done, not between evil done and evil possible. It is therefore closer to your criterion 3 than 4.
Not really. It refers to whether the good materially helps attain the end desired even with the evil. The end desired is the destruction of the target and the removal of its threat to your troops. The good is its destruction. The evil is any civilians killed. Saving your troops compensates or ameliorates the "evil" done, i.e. the unintended killing of civilians (as long as no more than necessary are killed).

Obviously, a non proportional response would be to nuke the launcher because while you’d materially help attain the desired end [the good], you’d have also killed civilians [the evil] all out of proportion with what was necessary or acceptable to neutralize the target.
The Israeli attempts to minimize or mitigate the effects of their counterattack are laudable, but do not answer the question you pose - which many would answer in the negative.
They most certainly do answer the criterion, at least the criterion I’ve outlined. Obviously it’s not the same as you believe it to be.

BTW, it isn’t an either/or criteron. All 4 must be met.
If criterion 4 therefore goes unsatisfied then so does the whole, and one must conclude that the Israeli actions are/were not just.
Exactly, however, as pointed out, 4 doesn’t go unmet. The intention and the purpose of the end are what drive the argument. Not how many or few are killed. To pretend that 4 isn’t fulfilled because you disagree with what constitutes "minimized" or "compensation" is to miss the entire point of the argument.
That’s not moral relativism or equivalence, by the way. Saying that two actions are not good does not mean they are equal, just as ((X < k) && (Y < k)) does not imply that (X == Y). Both Hezbollah and the IDF have acted badly - not as badly, but badly nonetheless. To say otherwise, to exempt Israel from the clear standard you’ve given because of their identity or circumstances, is true moral relativism.
I’m sorry, that just doesn’t make any sense. The argument isn’t just that two actions aren’t good ... that’s the point.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ,
loved the post, but have a question. Where do civilians who support a group’s aims with material support, not necessarily by fighting or being a card carrying member of said group, but provide food or shelter fit into this?

This question may skirt close to this - Americans who died on 9/11 supported the America’s military/industrial complex therefore were legitimate targets - but Im wondering if it provides depth to the civilian death argument.
 
Written By: jerm
URL: http://
Thanks for the timely discussion and review. I have a few questions:

Does the benefit of the action have to be a real benefit or a reasonably believed benefit? (For example, if it is not known that the launcher is already inoperable does the act fail the criteria?) Item 3 suggest that intention is what matters and not real benefit.

Does item 4 make it a “judgment call,” thus making it less a strict moral criteria but more a matter of opinion to some degree?

Finally, I wonder if this doctrine has anything to do with ethics at all. It would seem that to help civilized men to maintain the morale to fight an enemy, it would be good psychology to minimize civilian deaths. For example, consider the fellow who just missed throwing a bomb into the cellar with French civilians. Having done so might have made it hard for him (and his comrades) to continue to fight the war or fight it effectively.

What I’m asking is what is the motivation of the just war doctrine? Can there be moral rules in such a matter as war or are we just trying to hold onto a semblance of civilization for the sake of surviving hell with the least damage to one’s body and soul?

These guys argue that the whole “just war theory” should be scrapped. I’m not convinced but I wonder if it is less a deontological imperative rather than a prudent modus operandi. Your thoughts?
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
In taking out the hypothetical rocket launcher with its hypothetical human shield(s), there’s also the less-tangible effect Gen. Yaalon brought up in the previous post. Hezballah (and other terrorist groups) deliberately put civilians in harm’s way, causing those civilians to be injured or killed, for the simple reason that it benefits them — either their launcher (or gunman, or whatever) is allowed to continue to operate/attack with impunity or opprobrium falls upon their enemy for harming one or more civilians. If it didn’t benefit the terrorists (or even harmed them — the opprobrium falling upon them for putting the civilian(s) in that danger, for example), they would stop doing it and thus even the chance of future deaths/injuries under those circumstances would be greatly reduced.

To my way of thinking, encouraging the practice of the use of human shields falls into the category of ’bad effect’ while discouraging that practice falls into the category of ’good effect,’ and this should be factored into the ratio assessment made in #4.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Where do civilians who support a group’s aims with material support, not necessarily by fighting or being a card carrying member of said group, but provide food or shelter fit into this?
Walzer differentiates between direct and indirect support. Speaking specifically about "guerrillas" [terrorists], he points to the direct support they receive from people, such as food, shelter, etc.

Whereas indirect support is producing food, which is then sold at market, bought by the military and feeds it. Or voting for the party which then takes the country to war.

Critical to the guerrilla’s survival is that direct support. But the people supporting them still have rights and while their liberty can be abridged in such circumstances for obvious reasons, it isn’t something which is entirely forfeit and, per Walzer nor are their lives at risk. Instead it is up to the opposing force to separate the civilians from the guerrilla if they can.

It is one of the reasons asymmetrical warfare is one which is advantageous to the guerrilla. As I mentioned in another post, democratic states have to "wear red and walk on the roads", while the guerrilla or terrorist can "wear green and hide behind trees" ... from an old Bill Cosby skit. We’re much more morally constrained than they are.

The bottom line is civilians who directly support the terrorists are responsible and liable for their actions, but that doesn’t mean you can indiscriminately kill them because they are supporting the terrorists.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Does the benefit of the action have to be a real benefit or a reasonably believed benefit? (For example, if it is not known that the launcher is already inoperable does the act fail the criteria?) Item 3 suggest that intention is what matters and not real benefit.
In my opinion it is limited to real benefit.

"Reasonably believed benefit" is a bit to nebulous in terms of measurement. If for instance, you knew the launcher was completely inoperative and not a threat now or a future threat, justification for a strike which would destroy it but kill civilians would be very hard to make morally.
Does item 4 make it a “judgment call,” thus making it less a strict moral criteria but more a matter of opinion to some degree?
If you were to go with the "reasonably believed benefit" criteria, yes. Which is why I’m of the opinion that isn’t the intent.
Finally, I wonder if this doctrine has anything to do with ethics at all. It would seem that to help civilized men to maintain the morale to fight an enemy, it would be good psychology to minimize civilian deaths. For example, consider the fellow who just missed throwing a bomb into the cellar with French civilians. Having done so might have made it hard for him (and his comrades) to continue to fight the war or fight it effectively.

What I’m asking is what is the motivation of the just war doctrine? Can there be moral rules in such a matter as war or are we just trying to hold onto a semblance of civilization for the sake of surviving hell with the least damage to one’s body and soul?
Some have pointed to it as a rationalization for killing without guilt. I simply don’t see it that way. Instead I see it as a carefully thought out moral argument which confronts the realities of our existence (name a century, or heck, a decade without a war somewhere) and tries to help identify where certain behavior in war is acceptable (and why) and when other behavior isn’t (and why) morally.

We are taught certain morals as we grow up and then, if thrown into a war, asked to put them aside for war. We’re essentially taught that in the case of war there are exceptions to those moral rules.

But you have to keep in mind the point of the doctrine. It stipulates that there are instances when resorting to war are both legitimate and moral. That’s the point. And it then goes further then by stipulating what constitutes moral and immoral behavior in the context of a "Just War". That’s what we’re discussing.
These guys argue that the whole “just war theory” should be scrapped. I’m not convinced but I wonder if it is less a deontological imperative rather than a prudent modus operandi. Your thoughts?
I think it is a moral argument which recognizes that war is sometimes legitimately necessary and helps us make the determination as to whether a war fits the criteria. I also think it provides us with an ethical guide for waging just war, which, in the context of war, keeps us on the moral side of the line rather than the immoral side. The Geneva Conventions are an example of attempting to ensure wars that are waged as just wars.

The same guys who want to toss Just War are most likely those who’d condone descending into the same sort of barbarism our enemies use.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Well done but it’s useless. The MKKKs and cindyb’s of the world, who actually need to understand this, are too pig-stupid or hatefilled to bother, and the rest of us who are normal with morals already grasped this instinctively.
 
Written By: Shark
URL: http://
To my way of thinking, encouraging the practice of the use of human shields falls into the category of ’bad effect’ while discouraging that practice falls into the category of ’good effect,’ and this should be factored into the ratio assessment made in #4.
You don’t even have to go to 4. Look at 3.

"The intention of the actor is good, that is, he aims only at the acceptable effect;"

Using human shields is an "acceptable effect"? How are the actor’s intentions good if he’s willing to risk the lives of innocent civilians to shield himself from the inevitable retaliation against him for his actions? His intent is to use them to enable him to avoid such retaliation.

"The evil effect [risking civilian lives] is not one of his ends, nor is it a means to his ends".

It is certainly a means to his ends. His "end" is to attack and then survival to fight another day. His means of achieving that end are civilian shields. Without them he has little possibility of achieving that end.

As Walzer says, "If civilians had no rights at all, or were thought to have none, it would be a small benefit to hide among them. In a sense, then, the advantages the guerrillas seek depend on the scruples of their enemies ...".
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
I’m sitting here in my comfy chair with a glass of wine at my elbow, a shelf of books ready to hand, and the information superhighway crammed full of essays and analyses and discourses and debates at my fingertips. I have time to read all of these things, to ask questions or for clarification, and to ponder all manner of views and hypothetical situations.

I just want to say to those of you here and everywhere who’ve had to make these kinds of shoot/don’t shoot decisions in minutes or moments — or even just risked having to do so — I am in awe.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
"The intention of the actor is good, that is, he aims only at the acceptable effect;"

Using human shields is an "acceptable effect"? How are the actor’s intentions good if he’s willing to risk the lives of innocent civilians to shield himself from the inevitable retaliation against him for his actions? His intent is to use them to enable him to avoid such retaliation.


Who is ’the actor’ referred to in this instance? It took it to mean the person faced with deciding whether it was just/moral to attack the hypothetical rocket launcher despite the human shields. Much as I would like to have the guy with the rocket launcher and the ring of orphans behave in a more just/moral fashion, that’s not the hypothetical scenario. I suppose we could run the scenario analyzing it from the terrorist’s POV, but that wasn’t what I was doing.
 
Written By: Achillea
URL: http://
Hezbollah, on the other hand, has used civilian areas (and UN outposts) to shield it’s attacks and weapons purposely, fired it’s rockets at civilian targets purposely and mixes freely with the civilian population counting on the scruples of its enemy to withhold fire and allow them to escape.
You left out only two things: Hezbollah (and Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the rest of the Islamocrazies) routinely turn their civilians, including children, into walking bombs and send them into civilian areas to kill other civilians when they detonate. The jihadis also, when they get their own women and children killed in the crossfire while using them as human shields, shamelessly use the corpses as photo props...to demonstrate the "inhumanity" of their enemies. (Qana, anyone?)

To me, all of this moralizing is pointless. The burden of guilt for dead civilians clearly rests with the jihadis, and not the civilized peoples of the world that are forced to resist their insanity. Anyone who cannot see that is a fool.

Golda Meir said it best: There will be no peace between Israel and the Muslim world until Muslims learn to love their children as much as Israelis love their own. Thirty years on, all of us - not only Israel, but the rest of the Western world - are still waiting for Islam to figure that out.
 
Written By: Wes S.
URL: http://
I suppose we could run the scenario analyzing it from the terrorist’s POV, but that wasn’t what I was doing.
Let me try.

In possessing only rockets, anti-tank launchers, IEDs and small arms in limited quantities it is neccessary for Hezbollah (& Hamas) to keep hidden. The weaponary does not afford them the ability to confront Israel openly. To hide they require civilian infrastructure and civilians. The fact that this results in the loss of civilians is an unaviodable cost of war. The use of childrens corpses for anti-Israeli propoganda is a way of deriving benefit from this unfortunate truth.

The unfortunate aspects of this war are justified by point number 4, so that Hezbollah can demonstrate to Israel that occupation of Southern Lebanon will never again be an option.



(All that said the abduction of the soldiers, cross border raids and rocket attacks during peace time were unjustifiable, because they led to this war and the Israeli incursions. However ancient history is all that is at this point.)
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I’m sitting here in my comfy chair … I have time to read … to ponder … those of you here and everywhere who’ve had to make these kinds of shoot/don’t shoot decisions in minutes or moments — or even just risked having to do so — I am in awe. – Achillea

I am, too. What impresses me is the degree our men and women in the service have thought about proper behavior, discipline, and honor to the corp. I honestly admit that without training, I would use force more pro-actively in a wartime situation. Let me express my gratitude and respect to those who serve our country.

I’m of the opinion, that most (but not all) critics are taking advantage of the public’s ignorance for the purposes of psychological warfare—trying to manipulate the facts to induce guilt and demoralization. The double standard, the lack of context, a priori deontological moral rules, and superficial perfunctory criticism of the goals and methods of the enemy … all suggest there is a purposeful propaganda effort accompanied by those willing to be duped.

The bottom line is that our enemy is limited only by their means while we and our allies are limited by profound moral concerns of which there can be honest differences of opinion. For what it’s worth, I’m skeptical that only a small fraction is honest criticism.

Thanks for the thoughtful answer McQ. I’m not convinced (I think we draw the line to our detriment) but as Achillea points out we armchair generals and moralists should be humbled.
 
Written By: Jason Pappas
URL: http://libertyandculture.blogspot.com/
Unahop, your argument, to me lacks, some strength. Hezbollah has a choice to fight. We are morally at risk for our choices. An example, Pres. Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998. In the beginning Clinton argued that the goal of the attacks was to, and I paraphrase, "The Iraqi’s comply with the UN Resolutions." THAT is an immoral act, force can NEVER change in intentions or compell a better internal psychological state, in most cases. So Pres. Clinton was asking the US and British militaries to do something that armed force can not achieve...that’s immoral. And Pres. Clinto was "on the hook" morally for ALL the dead, Allied AND IRAQI. Militaries can kill people and break things, air power especially, but it can’t make people "better." So when a leader or leadership cadre adopt policies that can not succeed they are being immoral and are morally responsible for the ALL deaths. Hitler’s refusal to accept defeat after Dec. 1944 makes HIM responsible, in part, for the suffering of ALL Europeans. The war was over, and his continued resistance could not change that, his refusal to accede simply INCREASED THE INEVITABLE COST of the INEVITABLE OUTCOME. So to the extent that Hezbollah adopts policies that can not "win" on the battlefield, but WILL increase civilian suffering THEY ARE BEHAVING IMMORALLY. Your’s is somewhat post hoc isn’t it, Hezbollah was moral IF the cost of this campaign deters future Israeli incursions. And if it doesn’t?

Jason and Achillea, whilst your admiration for the troops is nice, realize this. Militaries Think, Plan, and Train to do this sort of thing. Walzer wrote in the 1970’s, I have several text books on military ehtics. The Armed Forces of the world, at least the Anglo ones, HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THESE ISSUES PRIOR TO COMBAT. They have developed tactics to achieve these ends and they train their troops in them. Your admiration needs some tempering, yours is akin to the adoration of a surgeon, IT’S WHAT S/HE TRAINED FOR YEARS TO DO. It’s not like the surgeon or the army just decided to "do their thing." So yes, it’s great that Tzahal’s troops are performing their duty as morally as possible, it’s a result of PRIOR thought and training, as much as "will power" on the battlefield.

McQ thank you, doubly... this was a great post! And I had begun to think that I was the only person in the US that had read Walzer’s book. All the talk in the Press about "disproportionate" response was starting to lead my blood pressure to unhealthy levels.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Joe,
Hezbollah has a choice to fight.
Hezbollah has a choice to fight or accept subjugation under an unfair Lebanese electoral system. Hezbollah has a choice to fight or accept occupation by Israel. Hezbollah has a choice to fight or lose Iranian support. Surrendering creates it’s own problems.
Your’s is somewhat post hoc isn’t it, Hezbollah was moral IF the cost of this campaign deters future Israeli incursions. And if it doesn’t?
Yes - ends to justify the means. And if those ends do not, then it was immoral to try.

As a matter of interest how do you find the Contra rebellion in terms of justification? Likewise Pinochet’s overthrow and execution of Allende and friends? I see ends as having justified means.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
accept subjugation under an unfair Lebanese electoral system.

You mean that as a MINORITY within Lebanon, right? So by that reasoning I can launch a war against my neighbors within and external to my home state because Republicans are in the MINORITY and we don’t run the government? Unfair??? There is NO majority grouping in Lebanon, the Shi’i represented by Hezbollah are only ONE group, amongst many? How is there fate unfair????
Hezbollah has a choice to fight or accept occupation by Israel.
WOW, not only a Radical Islamist, but a Post-Modernist too? Really, how does lobbing rockets INTO Israel come under the heading of BEING OCCUPIED BY ISREAL?! This is a sad argument, it’s akin to the burglar claiming self-defense against the police as they bust down his door to arrest him. Work harder, Hezbollah PUT ITSELF IN THE PLACE OF HAVING TO ACCEPT ISRAELIS TROOPS, BY ATTACKING ISRAEL.
Hezbollah has a choice to fight or lose Iranian support.

Again, WOW, so a group of LEBANESSE really ought to accept the support of Iranians? Yeah it’s a choice, akin to the choice the Quislings and Chetniks faced. They could support their own government or become pawns of a foreign power, but that doesn’t make it smart or right. So to recap, so far a minority group in Lebanon decided to become the agent of a foreign power, subvert the sovereignty of their own nation by creating a an armed- stadt-im-stadt, attack Israel and HEZBOILLAH, is some how, a victim in this little story? You astonish me sir or madam...
Surrendering creates its own problems.
Yes it does. Robert E Lee confronted those choices in 1865 and chose the correct but bitter course. Adolf Hitler faced it in Jan 1945 and decided to let hundreds of thousands die and millions suffer. Hezbollah made choices, and now they come home to roost. Let go of Iran and Syria’s support and see all their efforts disappear OR prolong a war in Lebanon that they started and will probably lose. Quite possibly leading to a renewed civil war IN Lebanon. yeah their "surrender" has consequences, too bad for them. ALL CHOICES HAVE CONSEQUENCES, some good, some bad, some indifferent. Big deal.
Yes - ends to justify the means. And if those ends do not, then it was immoral to try.
Actually this would take a book or at least a thesis. Short answer is "No they don’t." BTW, Machiavelli never posited this. Machiavelli posited that we must weight the costs of our acts versus their consequences. When an act’s consequences are positive, then we ought to act, even though the act itself may be "treacherous." But he also sought a "Moral Calculus" with which to weigh costs and acts.

This phrase and concept is used to justify ANY act....the reality is that almost NO act is in a theoretical or practical sense ABSOLUTELY true in all cases. Murder is ALWAYS wrong, by definition the UNLAWFUL taking of life, but not all taking of life is wrong, neither is ALL life to be put at risk for a cause. Ethics is not or does not require a set of ABSOLUTE Acts, which are ALWAYS right or wrong. So the statement the ends justifies the means can not be a blanket cover for any act, as long as the end is "good." Yes, it works, in most cases, killing Ted Bundy in order to prevent further murder may be an act that is disagreeable, but it might be justifiable by the end, BUT killing every Jew in order to save the world from further Anti-Semitism would NOT. So "The Ends Justifies the Means" is NOT an absolutely valid concept.

Further, practically that argument is flawed. Very seldom do evil acts yield good consequences. It’s the little story we tell ourselves to justify our acts. The Road to H$(( may be paved with Good Intentions, but the Super-Highway to H$(( is paved with Good Rationalizations. Generally speaking, violent, immoral acts merely harden the opposition and breed FURTHER violence. Yes the Punic War, the THIRD ONE I might add, settled Carthage’s hash, but most wars don’t end like that. The Balkans provide a case-in-point, as does the Middle East. EVERYONE has some justice to their claims and EVERYONE has been done cruelly by their neighbors. Yet no group has EVER managed to eliminate its neighbors, instead a cycle of violence repeats itself. So no the ends DON’T justify the Means. Neither in a theoretical nor a practical sense.

Nice try, wrong answer, please accept our condolences if you truly believe this way and read some more on ethics, especially Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars, if you haven’t already.
As a matter of interest how do you find the Contra rebellion in terms of justification? Likewise Pinochet’s overthrow and execution of Allende and friends? I see ends as having justified means.

Contra’s you mean that one group decided that they didn’t want to live in a Marxist Leninist dictatorship and took actions resulting in free elections? Pinochet, you mean that he’s at risk for trial for his Human Rights Violations? Seems fair to me. You implication is that Pinochet or the Contras were inherently evil and that their actions therefore provide evidence for your case. In fact, they were NOT and so Yes the Ends did justify the means, the ends were not evil nor were the means, except in Pinochet’s case... and now he pays the price for them. Again, thank you for your efforts here, but I’m not sure that you’re making a good case.


 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
uhaha-closp,

Wait, a second. So, if one does not possess the strength to go toe-to-toe with one’s enemies, that makes it okay to use civilians as human shields? It’s okay to turn residential areas into rocket launch pads? If you’re weaker than your enemies then the rulebook goes out the window?
 
Written By: Jordan
URL: http://
Golda Meir said it best: There will be no peace between Israel and the Muslim world until Muslims learn to love their children as much as Israelis love their own. Thirty years on, all of us - not only Israel, but the rest of the Western world - are still waiting for Islam to figure that out.

Written By: Wes S.
Unfortunately, Golda Meir also said that in context of her other beliefs. Which were that there was no real population of natives living in Palestine when the Zionists came, the "so-called Palestinians" were only "Arabs from elsewhere" who came in only "when Jews made the empty desert bloom". That any resistance to that, even the mass strikes and other peaceful protests "was terrorism" against the rightful possessors of the land. And "no negotiations" were possible with terrorists, no compensation was merited for them "willfully" abandoning land they didn’t own to begin with, and they should just go off to "some other Arab land" - until then "There will be no peace between Israel and the Muslim world until Muslims learn to love their children as much as Israelis love their own."

At about the same time Meir was spouting this nonsense to appreciative American audiences and had the then-sympathetic American press eating out of her hand, a more realistic man was making history.

Richard Nixon understood that ALL cultures love their children. All want a better life for them and to make a better future for them.

(Certainly the Muslims love their children. They hope for many offspring, and take pride in them. See how a Muslim family in America regards it’s children. Meir had the right before her nose example of the remnant Palestinians in Israel she chose to ignore.)

Nixon kept this core truth as one of the main rationales for Detente. It was by recognizing and accepting the Russians and Chinese DID INDEED love their children too, and had legitimate interests that deserved to be recognized and debated despite the evil of Marxism that had infested their lands. That dialogue and open expression of interests were positives that could reach a relaxation or even a resolution of certain tensions.

All while intransigent positions of both Muslim extremists (Israel is an illegal nation foisted on us by Zionist money bribes! No Jews here!) and Israelis (Not a shekel in compensation for your refugees! Colonies in Judea & Samaria are our God-given Right! To Hell with Res 242!) that might have had a chance to be explored and reduced in virulence under the Detente formula, only hardened further.

McQ -
Hezbollah, on the other hand, has used civilian areas (and UN outposts) to shield it’s attacks and weapons purposely, fired it’s rockets at civilian targets purposely and mixes freely with the civilian population counting on the scruples of its enemy to withhold fire and allow them to escape.

The civilian casualties their actions have caused, then, are immoral under the doctrine of Just War.


The problem with Catholic Just War Doctrine is that it breaks down at the point of analysis concluding killing civilians is immoral, that that judgment and then the eventual consequence of "criminal penalties" that ensue "on guilty parties" somehow resolves the matter.

It sounds all nice and moral to pontificate that "just because the other side kills your civilians gives no moral right to retaliate". To tout civilian life as somehow infinitely more precious than a "mere lot of soldiers". But both of these stances are badly flawed in context of war realities. Or give some dispensation for the oppressed people to be excused from contraints imposed on "the oppressor nation/race" to make the war and power balance more like a game where players are assigned handicaps to make the outcome of the game more equal odds——"fairer".

1. You cannot say you cherish your own soldiers, while lowering their value as human beings, simply because they are volunteers defending your people or drafted men, while saying the lives of innocent enemy civilians are more valuable. To sacrifice them in war circumstances simply to "spare" innocent enemy civilians. When exactly is the innocence lost? When a citizen of your country is born a male vs. female? When he is made "guilty" by going from innocent 17 to a lesser-valued human at 18 in a country of universal conscription? Guilty vs. innocent by having a drawn high vs. low number in a Draft lottery?

And what exactly is an innocent civilian? A secretary working in the Pentagon? A restaurant owner that gives free meals to a family of a suicide bomber? Only "true pacifists?" If so, does that make the Just War crowd say anyone who supports their people’s military guilty??

2. If a party to war decides to deliberately target civilians, the just war solution of "criminal penalties" on the perpetrators - is highly ineffective in deterring civilian butchery while war is in progress. Especially given modern, liberal court systems, laws to make jails meet prisoner comforts. In worst case, a nation or movement attacking civilian centers with nerve gas, nuclear bombs is supposedly spared retaliation in kind by just war doctrine, with a penalty of jail time IF they lose the war, IF the lawyers convict them.

The moralists, Christian clerics, and human rights activists - no matter how flowery their prose and claims that enemy rights are "backed by UN declarations with firm criminal penalties allowed" - cannot obviate that war is limited only by rules both sides agree to or by the voluntary unilateral restraint of one nation. Nor does "proportionality" exist outside the mutual agreement that is Geneva.

As their fine little debate on on the sanctity of the lives of families of and civilian supporters and enablers of suicide bombers continues, or "immunity" of terrorist-loving kids hanging with their Al-Qaeda Daddy, or the civilians cheering rockets launched from their apartments onto a rival city rages on...it does not confront reality, the reality sitting silently in silos or undersea. Reality is that we stand ready to obliterate 3 enemy cities with 400-600KT thermonuclear devices - even completely destroy their nation - if we suffer unacceptable civilian losses in a WMD attack. There is NO moral imperative if N Korea was able to nuke Los Angeles, Honolulu, Tokyo for us to "ensure no civilian lives are deliberately taken" and to limit our response to "precision civilian sparing weapons" and only win the war to try the handful of NORKs behind the nuking and sentence them to a jail term in "conditions the International Red Cross approves of".

If that was the deal, the NORKs might have fried Tokyo or Seoul already, possibly us. But that’s not the deal. Just War Doctrine is tossed as silly in such circumstances. N Korea knows they’d be fried. And I don’t think that Muslim terrorists and liberal Democrats have much traction to their claim that America is legally unable to attack and nuke a country and mega-piles of it’s civilians if such a state sponsor gives WMD to radical Islamist non-state actors.




 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
Actually C Ford it IS possible to create categories of "innocent civilians"...actually a better set of terms are "combatants" and "NON-Combatants." Civilians can be combatants and soldiers can be non-combatants. And their determination can change, it is NOT absolute.

I would say Mahmud or Gerhard, both Postmen, who pick up an AK or Gewehr 98K to fight an invader are combatants, even though both ARE civilians. LTC Bob is NOT a combatant, even though he may be a soldier, IF he is a Doctor or a Shaman.

And Frank or Rudi can be both combatants and Non-Combatants... when Frank is constructing M-1a2 SEPs or Rudi is building Koenigs Tiger Schwere Panzer they are combatants. At home having lunch, eating dinner with their families they are not.

Just thought I’d point out that "innocent civilian" is not a good term to use. There are better terms and they can allow us to make distinctions that allow combat that limits the damage to non-combatants as much as possible.

I will point out, also, that Walzer is JEWISH, and so his Just and Unjust Wars is not simply Catholic Just War Theory. If you have not read it do so. It has a number of flaws...he is wrong in his rationalization of the RAF’s Bomber Offensive until 1943 and then foolish in his critique of it in the post-’43 era. I would argue that his opposition to the Vietnam colours his "moral" arguments against the South Vietnamese government; he argues that they were a puppet of the US, like the DRVN WASN’T a puppet of the PRC and the USSR? Yes it IS flawed, but it is still a seminal work. Read it if you haven’t and let me know what you thought of it, as one of my favourite professori used to tell us.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Targeting innocent civillians, in order to affect political change, is terrorism plain and simple.

Hezbollah and the Israeli military are both guilty of it. And in supporting Israel, the US is complicit.
 
Written By: Nicolai Brown
URL: http://www.ameswire.com
The problem with Catholic Just War Doctrine is that it breaks down at the point of analysis concluding killing civilians is immoral, that that judgment and then the eventual consequence of "criminal penalties" that ensue "on guilty parties" somehow resolves the matter.
The Just War doctrine isn’t "Catholic" although it started within the Catholic church. It has moved well beyond the Catholic church.

Secondly, it doesn’t conclude killing civilians is immoral ... surely if you read the post that was clear.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
You mean that as a MINORITY within Lebanon, right?
Yes a minority of 40 - 50% of the population, that is restricted to 25% representation in Parliament and barred from the Presidency. I call it as unfair. Perhaps you have heard of something called the Lebanese Civil War, as far as I can tell the Shia lost and had to accept a gerrymander favoring the Christian sects of Lebanon.
how does lobbing rockets INTO Israel come under the heading of BEING OCCUPIED BY ISREAL?!
Israel occupied Southern Lebanon up until 6 years ago, there remain political groups within Israel calling its withdrawl a mistake. Israel entered to attack the PLO that had taken refuge in Beruit and the valley. As a byproduct of this successful Israeli operation they had to secure by occupation Southern Lebanon which is mostly Shia. The Shia resisted this through militant activity, which consisted of suicide attacks and partisan cells living amoung the population (very little assistance was rendered by the non-Shia Lebanese). The Shia won, Israel withdrew. To ensure Israel stays away Hezbollah maintains an extremely hostile posture to Israel. And the Iranians have some requests.
Again, WOW, so a group of LEBANESSE really ought to accept the support of Iranians?
No they ought to be able to rely on the cooperation of their fellow Lebanese citizens and be defended by their government from foriegn aggression. Given that they have in the last generation been involved in a civil war with a government that does not grant them equal rights and occupied by a neighbouring country - they might just have a different attitude. The Shia believe they need to be a strong faction in Lebanon, Iranians and Syrians can provide the means.
Contra’s you mean that one group decided that they didn’t want to live in a Marxist Leninist dictatorship and took actions resulting in free elections?
I include Pinochet’s actions in the same category - Allende was acting as a dictator. The ends justify the means in both cases IMO. The trial of Pinochet is a travesty resulting from your sort of moral argument, in condemning Pinochet for evil actions it negates a choice he made to relinquish power in favor of the greater good, a choice Castro refused to make. Pinochet on trial, Castro living in luxury - if your argument holds sway will there not be more "Cubas" than "Chiles".
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
If you’re weaker than your enemies then the rulebook goes out the window?
The rule book as given, or rather article 4. of the rulebook, is so obtuse that it can be used to justify anything. I see it as an attempt to say that the "ends justify the means", which is a sentiment I agree with. Have attempted to show the ends Hezbollah seek and the ends they resist. It is the ends that matter, judge for yourself if you think their ends to be good or evil for that is the only justification you get.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I picked a particularly interesting time to take a time-out, it seems.

While there may be people who use this moral equivalence argument, I personally am not one of them. Personally, I don’t make sweeping arguments about who is more moral at all. The most moral action to take and/or to advocate for is the one that involves the least amount of immediate death, and the wider moral judgements frequently get in the way of that basic requirement.

I’ve encountered the Just War phoenomenon and the passages you describe before. It’s a decent rule of thumb and OK as a concept. But there’s really another layer to the whole story than whether actions are a priori morally acceptable or not - a question I always consider to be a red herring. Morality is, sadly, a conditional exercise. That doesn’t make it dishonest or useless - civilization depends on it - but I’m just not interested in morality in the abstract, only in specific situations. Especially in geopolitical situations where morality perceptions affect soft power and political decision-making.

So, this is fine, relatively humane theory, maybe as humane as possible given the circumstances, but it doesn’t innoculate armies from losing their way, because of its vagueness. It doesn’t stop an army from losing a war due to the political consequences of their actions, assuming an underlying military stalemate. It also doesn’t eliminate that results are the ultimate driver of perceptions.

Israel has killed about 8-10 times as many civilians as Hizballah has, and that has driven global perceptions and the emerging political dynamic re the ceasefire in Lebanon. If Hizballah’s rockets were more lethally effective, and depopulating entire Israeli towns, etc, there would be less global pressure on Israel to restrain itself, and the terms of the cease-fire now being worked out might be more putative to Hizballah. We might be arming the Christians in Beirut to the teeth and saying "what the hell, bring on the civil war.". We might be bombing Syria, and it might even be morally justified, if Hizballah was killing hundreds or thousands of Israeli civilians. But they ain’t, and whatever they’d like to doesn’t drive the debate.

To summarize, Hizballah may be trying harder to kill innocent people, but it’s actually killing less of them. Israel may be trying harder to avoid killing innocent people, but it’s killing more of them. A lot more. Unfortunately, intent is a nebulous thing. It works much more effectively in a court case than it does in a battle for public opinion. It’s too emepheral.

To use a fictional example for comparison- a five-year-old child, or a small dog, may hate people and want to kill them, but the social sanctions against them are going to be fairly mild - because all they can do is beat their tiny fists against people’s legs. On the other hand, a well-meaning but clumsy armored division (or Godzilla. whatever) moving through a town is going to arouse much more intense feelings of anger when it accidentally knocks over some buildings.

——
Of course, I could argue against myself, and say that precisely because intent can matter in the propaganda wars, Hizballah is still obviously losing the propaganda war in the US, despite being the less-killing side by large multiples. But that’s digression. The point is that, in the absence of significantly larger civilian killings by Hizballah, global support for Israeli actions killing 100 civilians a day is very finite and drying up fast.

There is support for block-by-block ground fighting in South Lebanon, and Israel has wisely chosen to focus on that for now. This moves the ball away from public-opinion wars and heavy civilian involvement, and moves back towards military-on-military engagement between Israeli and Hizballah - which is the most moral kind of possible conflict here, anyway.

But it’s also an inevitable military stalemate with diminishing returns and increasing losses for Israel in the long run. That’s another story.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Yes a minority of 40 - 50% of the population, that is restricted to 25% representation in Parliament and barred from the Presidency. I call it as unfair. Perhaps you have heard of something called the Lebanese Civil War, as far as I can tell the Shia lost and had to accept a gerrymander favoring the Christian sects of Lebanon.
A) You mis-informed or B) you’re an IDIOT Unahop...The Shi’i are NOT 4050% of the populace. Check the CIA World FactBook, MUSLIMS, make up 59% of the populace, Hezbollah is a group WITHIN that 59%. As yo recall Hezbollah lost, you ARE an idiot or woefully mis-informed *SIGH( the Maronite CHRISTIANS lost the Civil War.) The 1942 Constitution and Census placed them firmly in power in Lebanon. The Civil War was to remove that dominance, no longer reflected in demographics. Dude or Dudette, I might be from a small mid-western state, but at least I can comprehend SOME of the history of the region. YOU really need to take a primer on it!
Israel occupied Southern Lebanon up until 6 years ago,
So the WITHDRAWAL, still counts as Occupation in the Unahp mind, does it? This is so sad it’s almost laughable...
No they ought to be able to rely on the cooperation of their fellow Lebanese citizens
Even IF Hezbollah would radically change Lebanese society into a Sharia-based Theocracy? So if someone comes into America hunting down the Clan (Not sure if the Filters will allow the proper "K") after the Clan has attacked, oh say Canada, I am supposed to side with the CLAN, even though as a Catholic, with Jewish, Gay and Black friends I know that the Clan will attempt to rid society of me and other "Undesirables?" Sorry Unahop, you carry "Nationalism" a bit far if you ask me.

and be defended by their government from foriegn aggression.
So Lebanon was supposed to go to war because Hezbollah was asttacking it’s neighbor?

Unahop your arguments are fairly weak here, based on Ignorace and the twisting of words to mean what Unahop wants them to mean..."Aggression", "Occupation" spring to mind most prominently.

 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Check the CIA World FactBook, MUSLIMS, make up 59% of the populace, Hezbollah is a group WITHIN that 59%.
I have fact checked and no longer make claim that Shia are about 50% of the population.

However disproportionality exists, Muslims are estimated at 59% of electorate and allocated only 50% of the seats. Of the Muslims it is the Shia which are more numerous, they are likely the most numerous sect in Lebanon. There has been no census, but they have had the highest birthrate for the last century and unlike every other sect they do not emmigrate. Most common estimate is 35% and they have an allocation of 21% of the seats.

You contend that the Muslims were victors in the civil war and yet decided to give themselves less power than their enemies. Odd.

Still go with the Shia being discriminated against under the post war system andt is known that other factions in Lebanon hold arms. What other justification do the Shia need to hold arms?
So the WITHDRAWAL, still counts as Occupation in the Unahp mind, does it? This is so sad it’s almost laughable...
The threat of reoccupation is valid, borne out by reality. I am surprised someone so well informed has missed this, but you see Israel has recently made an incursion...

To prevent this incursion or at least bloody it to the point of unsustainability Hezbollah set up a defenses that rely upon cell like guerilla forces blending into the population.
From you original response:
Hezbollah adopts policies that can not "win" on the battlefield,
These are the same policies (with additional firepower) that convinced Israel to exit Lebanon in 2000, demonstrating that these policies can win.

How would you set yourself up to defend against an enemy with complete aerial domiance, night vision superiority, larger numbers, a massive firepower advantage and an unwillingness to inflict collateral damage? Under Article 4. of this absurd document - if the loss of a few civilians is worth it to Hezbollah to prevent reoccupation and continue Shiite rule in Southern Lebanon, then this is a "just war" being fought by Hezbollah.
Even IF Hezbollah would radically change Lebanese society into a Sharia-based Theocracy?
This is my point - you and me both, and the rest of Lebanon object to their desired ends. This is what makes it an unjust war - that their ends are unjust. Likewise the KKK. By this argument Hitler is responsible for all suffering in WW2, not just post Dec 1944.

I strongly believe in freedom, democracy, property rights and the rule of law based on these - these are ends to which I will struggle to achieve. If someone was using force to suppress me from gaining these ends I cannot vouchsafe myself against using every means at my disposal to achieve these ends.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
This is my point - you and me both, and the rest of Lebanon object to their desired ends. This is what makes it an unjust war - that their ends are unjust. Likewise the KKK. By this argument Hitler is responsible for all suffering in WW2, not just post Dec 1944.

I strongly believe in freedom, democracy, property rights and the rule of law based on these - these are ends to which I will struggle to achieve. If someone was using force to suppress me from gaining these ends I cannot vouchsafe myself against using every means at my disposal to achieve these ends.
Huh...this was one of the most confusing things I’ve read. Lebanon should have supported Hezbollah, even when they were opposed to them?! WHAT????
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Huh...this was one of the most confusing things I’ve read. Lebanon should have supported Hezbollah, even when they were opposed to them?! WHAT????
Lebanon should not have allowed Hezbollah to arise. Lebanon should practice democracy and act to include Shia in the practice of government. This could provide Shia with alternatives to Iranian money and weaken Hezbollah. Lebanon should make itself a legitimate soveriegn government. But they do not, they fought a civil war against the Shia seeking to eliminate the threat of Hezbollah by force of arms and now seek to establish a government based upon rules that restrict Shia power. This, coupled to Iranian and Syrian involvement and Israels period of occupation, has created conditions favoring Shia support of Hezbollah militia. Now Hezbollah is strong, probably the supreme sect in Lebanon and is without recourse to government assistance or government protection.

Today Hezbollah are alone in fighting a war of resistance to prevent Israels occupation and preserve their independence (to practice Shia religious rule). They are using tactics that have proven effective in their most recent conflict with the same enemy, a mere 6 years ago. It is my belief that by the criteria laid down in the post (specifically article 4.) that this fufils the given requirements to make a "just war".


My point in all this is that the "just war" criteria laid out are a bunch of ar*e. As I hope I have demonstrated a bunch of troglodyte theocrats with guns can wage "just war". And as McQ points out their enemy can also practice "just war". The criteria allow no judgement of the most important part of any conflict - the relative merit of any ends favored.

The term "just war" is a nice phrase that I would prefer mean war in a just cause, however I can concede the phrase does not mean what I hope it to mean. I favor the reasonably secular democracy of Israel over the theocratic dictatorship of Hezbollah, so I call Israel as practicing war in a just cause and Hezbollah as practicing war in an unjust cause, even though they are both practicing "just war" by the criteria.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider