Just War

 

March 7, 2012

By JonnyG

 

The Roman Catholic doctrine of JUST WAR is both intellectually interesting and morally relevant to me as an American, A Roman Catholic and for 100 other reasons. One day I was looking online and fell upon a discussion, which ended with a request for questions and comments. As one of those people who take up the offer, I sent out a question to what I believed would be a uniquely interesting legal warrior lecturer. Instead I got a multigenerational military man. Not only am I grateful he spoke so candidly with me, but I am most respectful of his position, intellect, real world experience and willingness to engage the difference. Wow, it was a thrill talking with this guy. In the correspondence reproduced below (with only a quick spell check) I changed his last name to “X” and took off my last name, rendering me alternatively Jonny, Jon and Jonathan – he is Jon, Jonathan, sometimes with X.

I reproduce these here as a heart-felt debate, well-thought interaction and a damn interesting conversation about war.

 

Jonny,

I don’t think you intended your remarks for me specifically (since I didn’t mention emotion in my portion of the panel response), but since I’m intrigued by your comments I’d like to respond anyway.

 

In the first place I really appreciate your willingness to wrestle with the issue directly and move beyond the emotion that can so easily cloud our judgment (as you suggest).

That said, I think in your own analysis you are confusing two very different aspects of “proportionality” as it applies to Just War Doctrine. There are two levels of Just War analysis and both include a proportionality test. In determining whether a war itself is just (i.e. whether we should choose to go to war at all), the decision maker must weigh whether or not the great evil of war is proportionate to the evil that is being opposed (jus ad bellum, or perhaps, the political/strategic level of warfare). The other level is in the conduct of war once it has been declared (jus in bello, or the tactical level). In that case, the question is related to the predicable consequences of attacking a particular target (i.e. destruction of civilian property and/or the death of innocent noncombatants, both of which must always be protected). Assuming you’re attacking a legitimate target, are those consequences proportionate to the military advantage gained by eliminating the target?

 

The proportionality question in this case, then, is whether the death/injury to the others in the

house (assuming for the sake of argument that they themselves are not lawful combatants) that occurred in the raid is proportional to the military advantage of killing bin Laden. That to me a simple answer and one I would not have hesitated with much had I been the commander involved. You yourself state that his death saved lives while costing as few as possible; what could be more proportional?

 

Your objection to the necessity test seems to me more well-founded, although I still respectfully disagree with your conclusion. Necessity requires that the violent actions taken in prosecuting a war must genuinely contribute to winning the war (vs. simply inflicting pain and suffering for their own sake). Again, I truly respect your position that killing OBL was not necessary by that standard and I think it has some merit (without fully knowing your rationale), but in the end I fall on the other side. On the one hand, after the fact it appears (from what we’ve seen in the media since the attack) that he continued to direct the operations of at least part of Al Qaeda right up to the end as they strove to fight a war against the US. Even if we didn’t know that going in, however, I would argue that he intentionally served as the symbolic leader of a movement that proved itself willing and able to follow his leadership in visiting violence against our people, combatants and noncombatants alike. He very intentionally released videos of himself toting weapons and exhorting attacks against Americans and our allies. He never renounced that role or issued any call to people to cease from following it. To protect the people, to preserve order, and to punish wrongdoing (all, to my mind, the legitimate biblical spheres of government), it was truly necessary to target him if at all possible. In practice, that may be hard to distinguish from the desire for retribution that you identify, but I think it is there and legitimate nonetheless.

 

I apologize for the length of my response, but I felt your thoughtful email demanded a thoughtful reply.

-Jon X

 

 

> Subject: Just OBL Justice

>
> I appreciate your distinguishing emotion as irrelevant to just war analysis, but that being the case, why did you put it there at all?
>
> Also, do you consider it proper just war analysis to juxtapose our proportionality with other avenues we could have taken rather than our 6 seals, 2 helicopters, 10 years and a trillion dollars v. him on that day, whatever guards were on site and 2 women?
>
> That, of course brings into question whether our necessity was not simply retribution realized with overzealousness.
>
> I believe his death saved lives and the manner of his death cost as few lives as possible – 1 go Seals!! – but in terms of a true just war analysis, does this hold up?
> Jonny
> bknyt.com

>
> Sent from my iPhone

6/9/11

to Jonathan

Jonathan,

Thank you for your intriguing response, I greatly enjoy analyzing the finer points of important analysis.For me, the length of your response was too short – sorry if mine is too long.

With respect to the differing analysis of proportionality, either can be described as disproportionate.

 

First, with respect to our going to war as a political act, can we ever, as a mighty power, go fully into war with such a small entity? The answer must be yes, but cannot be absolutely. “Al Qaeda” declared war against us, furthered that war through recruitment, training and indoctrination and then committed an act of war preceded and followed by other acts of war.

Proportionality clearly allows us to declare war — unfortunately we did not declare war. Declaration v. declaration seems to be outside the proper scope of analysis, but is nonetheless fully consistent, fully proportionate. Proportionality clearly allows us prepare as well, although this too seems outside the analysis as we are pre-prepared, pre-trained, pre-indoctrinated. I suppose, technically, if we dedicated a proportionate troop level to meet the scope of Al Qaeda we could have proportionality. Then we get to the actual act of war. Al Quaeda committed an act of war on 911, and at other times. Proportionality cannot ban a counter act of war, but proportionality also need not be the baby thrown out with the bathwater. I will forgo the classic pacifist argument, except to say that we might be unable to fight with our full might given who we are. That aside, can our acts of war be proportionate? This brings us to your next point, the conduct of war.

 

Proportionality in the conduct of war is tricky. I say this because of who we are. Can we, given our size, might, technical prowess, money, reach and the rest proportionately fight a war against a far smaller entity? I think, practically, we cannot. We can also paste in the Jesus-as-pacifist argument here. However, this doesn’t seem correct. Clearly we can take a similar sized force and engage the enemy in war, without reference to varying tactics, skill level and the like. Armies are always uneven in such areas. But size, that is different. It was Colin Powell that brought me to just war analysis because it seems to me “going in with overwhelming force” may be practically the best, safest, quickest and most decisive manner of war for our side, but it does not seem just. A big foot can crush many of God’s creatures. This is how I came to the idea of proportionality vis-a-vis 6 Seals, two helicopters etc. I think OBL as a symbol, as a figurehead, as an acting commander is so small compared to POTUS and all of our trappings that proportionality is nearly impossible to attain practically.

Second, you seemed to have some interest in the necessity argument. Taking your parameters, overlooking the issues of Abu Ghareb and Guantanamo, of course war requires violent action. In our use of violent action, my limited-by-the-media world view is that I believe we went to great lengths to minimize civilian death and destruction. In the great push of war, I will not now argue that we were unnecessarily brutal, although our torture policy eviscerates this at almost every level. At the same time, I agree that killing OBL was necessary to the conduct of the war, especially any hope of ending that war. I further have nominal reservations about how to go in to get OBL, given that we did not not really know who or what was inside the compound, whether the Pakistani government or military would engage or 1000 other possible scenarios.

 

To be clear, my initial email was more questions than my personal, rock-solid analysis. I believe OBL should have been taken, was taken with a proportionality and restraint that was admirable and reflected well on us, and that given the doctrine of just war, was necessary in as much as leaders count.

 

I also agree a government should protect its people, preserve order (mostly in a broad sense, but that is a wholly different topic) and punish wrongdoing. I believe, and believe you agree that all of these ends can be met justly. I believe our Seal’s actions were, standing alone, both proportionate and necessary. On the question of whether we conducted a just war, there remain for me problems with proportionality given our troop levels, monetary commitment and never-ending presence and problems with necessity given our enhanced interrogation policies and the fact that we never declared war, but that last one seems more my emotion coming into this analysis when the absence of emotional analysis was how I started.

Thank you for your response and I’d be glad to get another. However, I am quite sure you do not want to push forth on just war doctrinal analysis with me for the sake of enjoying it, although I’d be happy to continue on at anytime.

Jonathan X

 

 

Jonny

6/9/11

to Jonathan
Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Jonny
> Subject: Re: Just OBL Justice
Jonathan X

6/10/11

 

Jonathan X,

Thanks for your reply; I enjoy the discussion and I also think it’s important for a military officer to be routinely challenged to think through these types of issues thoroughly.

Regarding proportionality, I would disagree with the way that you are using the term (for both types). In neither case does proportionality (as I understand it) require that my side respond in equal proportion to whatever the enemy brings to the fight. The fact that our country is richer and our army is bigger/badder is beside the point. A doctrine that stated that I have to restrain myself to make sure we have a “fair fight” would be odd, to say the least. In the same sense, you wouldn’t expect a police force to show up with fewer officers or not to use their guns to subdue a suspect holding a knife in the name of proportionate response – that would be ridiculous.

 

Proportionality in the decision to go to war simply means that the government must weigh the evil of warfare itself against the expected benefit of winning the war (or, perhaps, the expected evil that will result if choose not to fight). Indeed, if we believe that the fight is indeed just, then we should try to win it with massive, overwhelming force in order to end it as quickly as possible and prevent greater long-term suffering if at all possible – that figures into the Powell Doctrine to which you refer, and in my mind is a significant aspect of just warfare. Just, not fair. Speaking as a Soldier, I have no intention of ever entering into a fair fight; but I am committed to always fighting them justly. The sign at the entrance to the US Army War College has a quote (from some dead General, I presume), “Not to promote war but to preserve peace.” I understand that to mean that if we maintain a military force that is so strong that it would be foolish to wage war against us, then by doing so we actually PREVENT war from happening. If we do have to fight, then we win rapidly and overwhelmingly so that peaceful processes can begin again ASAP.

 

Your mention of declaration of war is true in a technical sense (there was no act of Congress), but in this case I see it as a minor technicality. Al Qaeda didn’t pass a resolution either, but they did let us know that they were hostile and committed to violence against us. We did the same; neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were surprises when we pulled the trigger. Pres Bush made it clear that our country would be fighting against organizations and states that harbored Al Qaeda, and with Iraq I vaguely remember that there was some sort of ultimatum issued with a deadline (my access to news at that point was slim, but I’m confident that most of the world knew that we had an army sitting in Kuwait ready to go).

 

I have the same objection to your definition of proportionality in the conduct of war, so I won’t restate it. Yes a big foot can crush many of God’s creatures, but it doesn’t have to. It should tread both firmly AND carefully.

 

On necessity (closely related to proportionality in the conduct of war – such that I find it difficult to separate them distinctly), that relates to whether a target is a legitimate, just, military or not, and if the damage caused (or expected to be caused) by prosecuting that target is reasonably limited. You and I appear to agree that OBL was a legitimate target, and that the damage caused by the raid was not excessive relative to the military value of killing him. That, to me, satisfies both necessity and proportionality.

 

I understand your question about whether there were perhaps better methods that could have been chosen, but I would suggest that that’s what the President gets paid to decide. All of the evidence is that the Pakistanis were either unwilling or unable to get him themselves without a leak – according to the papers, in the past we’ve given the PAKMIL advanced notice when we intended to go after a target, only to find that target is warned and gone before we can get there. Not worth the risk when it took 10 years to find this guy. I grant that we didn’t know exactly what was inside the house, but perfect knowledge cannot be the test: it is simply impossible in warfare. Again I would suggest that results speak for themselves on this one, suggesting that the right call was made.

 

You mention two other issues below. One is torture, which is another simple one for me. Abu Ghareb et al were absolutely wrong, indefensible, and unjust. Every time our country made decisions to torture people, it was wrong. I’m guess that you and I agree on that. But that doesn’t make the decision to fight the war wrong. As best as I can tell, we don’t do it anymore (I know that when I served as commander of a detention center in Baghdad the rules were clear an inviolate, and we were inspected about once a week to ensure absolute compliance). It’s really really bad that any of it ever happened and that even now some people think it should continue – but that can’t inviolate the whole fight. The government has a responsibility to fight this thing.

 

You also touch on how long we’ve stayed. That’s a lot more complex in my mind. I hate that we’ve stayed in either place for so long, but what was the alternative? In Iraq, we broke it; we have a moral responsibility to try not to leave it broken. That is taking a long time. The same is true (with even greater complexity) in Afghanistan. An example from my most recent deployment to northern Iraq (I returned in November): the Kurds and Arabs in the north don’t trust each other. They trust the Americans. Whatever happens on the national level, at the local level they want us to stay, because, “the day you leave is the first day of our next civil war.” What is the just answer in that situation?

 

That’s probably enough for us to chew on for the moment. Thanks for your continued dialogue!

-Jon X
 

Jonny

6/14/11

to Jonathan
 

Jonathan,

Now not only do I thank you for your writing, but also for your patience.

As I defer to your seemingly greater study on the subject, I seem to have gotten some of the analysis wrong. Kudos on the correction. I’m guessing, proportionally, I’m still good for a few points.

 

I wondered why I had gotten it wrong, so I looked back on my Just War analysis from a few years back. I suppose I conflated two ideas, proportionality and comparative justice. If one were to combine the two and lay them over the presumption against violence, one might make such a mistake – and apparently I did.

Comparative justice, however, seems to be in line with at least the spirit of my reasoning. When one side is so overwhelming, as we are, “how one would deliver less injustice with a bog foot” is a hard circle to square. With respect to overwhelming force, the more the force, the more the injustice, at least at the (debatable) point this becomes inevitable. Coupling these size ideas with proportionality, wand adding in the lack of a defined mission, and any “expected destruction” outweighs the good to be achieved.

 

One may always define the good to be achieved so broadly that any force would be acceptable, but that defeats the purpose of such a morality-based analysis. So I hold that our use of overwhelming capability is relevant to this analysis and works against the justice of our actions because the wrong suffered not by our enemies, but by the bystander and by the regular Afghani cannot be justified when comparing their small forces to our behemoth – an inevitable comparison I think. I fear this remains a bit murky, but I’m working on a more clear explanation, ha ha, maybe justification for my views.

 

I am very glad to hear your absolute rejection of torture. I find it a stain and a new tool in the box of weapons against those who fight for me.

 

The declaration of war brings us to more departure. The way I read, you believe it is okay to compare us to them, the USA to Al Quaeda. I don’t make that leap. I can accept we are all equal, but I cannot close the gap of disparity in background and expectation. I’m guessing that is a political thought, not an emotional one.

 

Just because they did not declare war does not relieve us of such an obligation, both as a matter of constitutional authority and, in just war analysis, as a matter of a baseline from which we begin. As it stands, our “war” was for 911. Let’s figure 100 people and $1,000,000 on their side, 100,000 troops and $2b a week on our side. With numbers so incomparable, the inevitable destruction to them cannot justify the actions by us. I think to hold that you wold have to believe that any act of war would allow for any retaliation we chose?

 

If a North Korean suicide bomber blew himself up in our embassy in South Korea, would we be just in nuking them? It’s overwhelming. It’s war against war. But no, we cold not and remain just. Somehow, actual proportionality means something, even if I used it clumsily in my prior proportionality argument.

 

President Bush, to me (and this is where that dognamit emotion comes in), cannot be honestly relied on for any justification. To say he made clear that we would go after Al Quaeda and those who helped them was just that, he and not we. No act of war, no true mission, no warning and no authority that we would go after the harboring entities (notwithstanding the way we papered and paid for it) . Whether the world knew or not, America did not know as America was hoodwinked into this war. I am sure you agree.

As to the proportionality v necessity distinction, I have no problem separating the two. It is true much of my proportionality argument can be used for necessity also. However, the absence of a declaration of war renders the necessity necessarily unclear. Iraq was unnecessary as it related to Al Quaeda. The volume of force needed was unnecessary – unless the morality is subsumed by a anything-whenever-attacked trigger is in place, at which point there are no limits on our proportionality as any amount of force may always be necessary.

 

In all of this, again, the OBL Seal Mission seems a perfect example of a just war action finely calculated, proportionally in tact and necessary – in larger part for the reasons you initially stated. My initial statement was more a question about whether the need to get him, as stated, “Dead or Alive” was driven by retribution over necessity. My question has been answered by our conversations. It was necessary and not retribution. That does not hold true for the rest of the war, but for that piece, if one may separate the pieces, seem durable against this moral analysis.

 

As for Pakistan, I have an issue with border crossing, but that would require a separate analysis. Were the 10 years it took to get him wasted? The question I suppose must have been, if we asked it at the beginning, to what length should we go to get him as the head of them? A trillion dollars? I doubt that would have flown. 100,00/1,000,000 of our finest? I doubt that would have flown. Is it worth helping to create the coalition that formed against us? That should have been expected, but was it analyzed? The Arab Spring? I think Cheney said something like this domino theory would happen, was he right? or is this an inevitable movement long overdue? Was it more Egyptian wheat prices, commodity speculation and historical timelines? I don’t know, but the proportional comparison of the harm caused us v the harm we sent back was both disproportionate and unnecessary both in theoretical analysis and practical reality. I do not believe extra-justice or the good we do offsets the injustice we do by size or intention.

 

We still haven’t won because we have no mission. We got OBL and should call it a day and come home on some just war horses, and as Americans, leave a small rapid response team and a healthy intelligence community.

 

Perhaps we should adapt. Maybe we could declare war to each other, rather than at a Unconditional Surrender table well-haunted by US Grant and his progeny. I’m not sure, but I am sure I am glad there are guys like you (who I assume having been on some panel is far more influential than lil’ ole’ me) out there not only being thoughtful (even if we disagree you are obviously thoughtful about this), but sharing with regular Americans like me.

I’ve never served in the way you have, so, lest I not forget, thank you for your service. I did, however google up some military records site and dropped in some of the family names and it seems that since mine got here, they fought here. That’s a pretty cool feeling (I knew only a few of my family WWIIers).

 

Wow, this letter took me some effort both to start it and to write it. I hope I have provided a decent thread here. I much appreciate your input.

 

Jonathan

 

The way I read it, your definition of proportionality is farther from “proportionality” and closer to “just cause” as I take from

COMPARATIVE JUSTICE: while there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other

PROPORTIONALITY: the overall destruction expected from the use of force must be outweighed by the good to be achieved.

 

With no definable mission or objectives, any expected destruction outweighs the use of force. However, taking the replacement of the head of government as the good to be achieved, no argument can reasonably be sustained that the destruction of these people and this culture is outweighed by that good. In Iraq, the good v. evil cannot sustain the small v large-scale argument. As to the criteria of Proportionality, the presumption of non-violence is not overcome and this conflict is not just.

Jonathan X

6/23/11

to me
 

Hi again, Jonathan, and thanks for your continued consideration and for the very valuable challenges to my argument.

 

I still can’t agree with you on proportionality. I think our disagreement hinges on your conjecture that, “the more the force, the more the injustice.” I think I understand the logic, but I actually think the exact opposite is true. If my cause is just (that is, if I am right in confronting evil and there is no effective non-military solution), then the most just course for me is to apply the maximum amount of force possible in order to end the conflict quickly. On the one hand, the quick result means less total suffering and damage, and on the other, the modern US military’s “big foot” is actually capable of tremendously precise application. We have the ability (and, as a Soldier, the responsibility) to identify and strike targets with a great deal of precision and very minimal damage to surrounding property/people/etc. The more difficult part is often identifying the correct targets in the first place, but we also have a really, really talented and capable intelligence apparatus to help us do that.

 

With respect to our specific application in Iraq and Afghanistan – or let’s stick with Afghanistan as I’m unwilling to try to defend the jus ad bellum aspects of going to war with Iraq (although I give a little more credit to the motives of those making the decision than you do – a VERY little) – the gain/loss calculus for your “regular Afghani” is, I would suggest, a lot more complex than you make it out to be. That man was living in a violent, stone-age society under a brutally repressive regime. If he had the misfortune to be a woman (which I recognize then makes him a “she), it was even worse – she had almost no rights, no education, and no possibility for social or economic mobility. Conditions for an awful lot of those regular Afghanis are a whole lot better now than they were 10 years ago. The US invasion brought pain, and it brought gain. I’m not convinced that violence or life expectancy for your average civilian is any worse now that it was before. Education, health, and economic opportunities are demonstrably better in almost every part of the country. My point really is that the moral calculus is extremely complex. Even in Iraq, where violence and economic activity are clearly worse than they were, there is a whole demographic group (the Kurds) who is better off now than they were because of the assistance of American arms (but admittedly that wasn’t the reason for invading in either case).

 

On the declaration of war, my point really was just that my understanding of the Just War Doctrine’s requirement is that the legitimate leader(s) of the government that is waging war have a responsibility to declare their intention to fight and their just in prosecuting the fight. I was saying that although we didn’t “declare war” with a measure passed through Congress, our legitimate leaders (the President and, by continuing to fund the war and never demanding a declaration, Congress) made it clear in every possible public forum that we were going to attack Afghanistan and Iraq if certain conditions were not met certain times, and that were were going to use all possible means, including lethal force, to destroy the Al Qaeda organization. That, I believe, meets the Just War requirement, if not perhaps the Constitutional one (but again, Congress has had oodles of opportunities to raise an objection and never even came close to expressing disagreement with the policies – that’s why I called it a technicality that we didn’t “declare war”).

 

You say that it was “he, and not we” meaning President Bush. I remember it differently. There was a LOT of public support for both invasions at the time that they began. And there was NEVER significant protest against them on the level that there was in Vietnam – or even a concerted effort to vote Members of Congress out of office for not pulling us out. I further reject the idea that we can elect someone democratically and then decide on which policies he/she gets to speak for us. He was the President, he had the legitimate right (with Congressional consent, which they’ve given) to commit forces. That he was wrong in doing it doesn’t violate the “declaration” principle.

 

All of that said, I definitely agree with you that in the balance, the total cost has not been worth it. But I confess that I only see that in hindsight. I appreciated President Obama’s comment last night about how we will be more pragmatic in the future about committing forces (something like that), and I think it reflects national-level learning from this decade. It’s a lot harder to build a liberal democracy in another country than we thought (but give us some points for at least trying, rather than simply blowing everything up and walking away, or claiming new territory – name another country that has ever tried that). We continue to believe the value of our ideals, but we’ve learned that imposing them (or even, assisting others who express a desire for them) abroad is really expensive and might even be impossible. But we didn’t know that going in. I think most of us truly believed that we could at the same time make ourselves safer AND create a far better life for Iraqis and Afghans who wanted to live in freer, more advanced, more peaceful nations. That may have been naive, but it was a lot more noble than crass retribution or whatever other motives we now want to attribute to the neocons.

 

What do you think?

-Jon

 

Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 12:00:30 -0400

Subject: Re: Just OBL Justice

Jonny

6/27/11

to Jonathan
 

I thank you also and feel I am getting the better end of the bargain in receiving your discussion points – given your service status, and I assume your service record.

Yes, the more force the more injustice. That seems to me a definitional truism. While it may not follow with equal proportionality that the bigger the foot the proportionally bigger the injustice, I don’t believe it can properly be argued that the bigger the foot the same or the smaller the injustice that will be realized. It must be the bigger the foot, the bigger the injustice is a definitional truism.

 

I still argue you cannot end the argument once justification to choose war over pacifism has been met. Again, you must agree that it would be unjust to nuke N Korea in response to their sending a suicide skiff to sink our boat thereby killing 100 of ours. Our response must…no no no…should be proportional to be just in the sense we are discussing.

 

Additionally, I find that you are now leaving the realm of analysis and relying on assumptions, which renders your analysis less clean. For example, you argue, “the greater the force — the quicker the result/end — the less the total suffering”, which while persuasive outside just war, remains merely a logical fallacy. The proper comparison would be “the total injustice done” as against “the amount of injustice we are entitled to take in response to the actual harm done, and the ongoing harm posed to us.” Again, can we nuke N Korea? It seem to me, and perhaps you will tell me I’m getting outside the strictures of the JWD, that to be just, we must overcome the default and be just in declaring our intentions to harm, and then, we must be just in our application of the right to act outside the default — of course the is being pacifism.

 

Your statements of obligation continue to hearten me. The obligation to minimize injustice and precisely define targets thereby giving the best chance of maximizing both need and proportionality.

 

I do, however, notice that you rest greatly on the extreme end of our capabilities, especially precision attacks, extra-capable intelligence and thoughtful targeting. These are soft-spots in your argument that enhance my definitional truism. We may minimize, but as nothing is perfect, we will miss and thereby increase injustice. I hear many stories on the nightly news that we bombed the wrong target and killed the wrong people. These stories may be cover for something we didn’t want to say we did or may be true and honest, but taken at face value, your reliance on our precision and minimization, no matter how well-intentioned our goals, does in fact increase injustice.

 

In your second paragraph I notice you again turn to what I would consider improper comparisons. The Afghani’s life now, vs/ what it would have been had we not come? Our war is not against the avg. Afghani and our morality is not offset by the good we do. Isn’t our moral standing about declaration and definition of the proportionality of our going, as set-off by the amalgamation of our actions with our defined and declared rights? Again, can we nuke N Korea? We could nation build without war, meaning we could do the same good with none, or at least far less of the harm and injustice. In fact, this pacifistic approach has supplied us the greatest soft power, the dream in the billion of individuals around the world that we are all equal in the USA, that we can thrive, that merit is the path to reward. The regular Afghani before the war had little in fact and little to hope for, which is true of a great part of the world, even today. Suggesting we supplied some of that to the Afghanis may be true and it may not be true, but neither way does it render our actions more just … especially because it was not part of our declared interests in going to war there.

 

A Declaration of war by Congress, or the lack thereof, I think is legitimate area for inquiry in this analysis. First, doing so keeps us within our own chosen value set, and failing to do so veers us away from the same. Declaring war also defines the what is proportionate and necessary so that we can measure against it — this is part of our problem in the current wars, we are outside the Powell doctrine by failing to define the mission so we can leave when it is accomplished, or at least change it to nation building and leave our justification behind.. Again, nuke N Korea?

 

I believe part of our disconnect is found in your statement, “the legitimate leader…waging war…ha(s) a responsibility to declare…intention to fight and (to be)… just in prosecuting the fight.” i come to the JWD argument believing inherent in a full understanding is measuring the justice in prosecuting the fight. If we do not measure our justice, and simply make our way to a justification to fight, and that is the full proper analysis of JWD, then I do not believe JWD sheds much light on whether a war is needed. I suppose overcoming pacifism is a valid test in any event, but it is incomplete without the analysis of the prosecution of the war, the taking account of our actions, not against the history of the world, but against our declaration of who we are and how we act.

 

With respect to going to war in Afghanistan, I protested the war (not the soldiers, not like Viet Nam) with about a million people before the war. I was in NY with them, and we were joined by many more groups of people around the world. This does not excuse or condemn congress, the press, the executive or the failure of the people to vote out representatives. I think as against our own principals we needed a declaration of war and without it we would not have gone to war. That being said, I do not argue that one could not or should not have been obtained.

 

To close out, I give us high makes, historically high marks for trying to make the world a better place. I am glad we didn’t go in, explode and leave. In fact, I think our attempt to properly, surgically prosecute this war is admiral and was at the time. I think, however, this goes against your larger-force-than-absolutely-necessary argument. I also do not buy the idea that we were naive. we were their against the soviets, we have great historians, including, at least I hold the belief, the best military historians and tacticians the world has ever known. No, the neocons were wrong all the way from declaration to start, to end, to expansion and in almost anyway I can think of. Iraq and our “enhanced capabilities” were their crass retribution, but we are holding off on that I believe. Didn’t Shinseky get fired for trying to keep the troop levels at at the place our tacticians had previously determined for such an action? Doesn’t his firing, in essence, fire your principals from alignment with the neocons?

 

Yeah, Afghanistan was and remains a bad part of town, but we didn’t go there for them, we went for OBL and his cronies. I think we got ‘em, and while I think it took too much to get ‘em when viewed in a JWD analysis, as comes to the separate question of politics, our getting OBL between the eyes after enduring the long hard slog was a tactical success that will reverberate for many years around the globe, and that will, perhaps, cause less people to attack us and thus reduce the need for war — but that is pure speculation and gobs of hope.

Thanks Jon,
-Jon