Acts of War

Steven Riddle at Flos Carmeli has a thoughtful discussion of just war vs. pacifism.

One thing that I think needs to be kept in mind in discussions about just war is that, strictly speaking, we should talk about just (or justifiable) acts of war rather than “just wars” simpliciter. As Paul Ramsey argued, war is nothing more than an extension of political force, and is therefore as subject to moral evaluation as any other political act.

For instance, World War II is often held up as the paradigm case of a just war. But the Allies committed acts in the course of the war that clearly violated jus in bello criteria such as the bombing of civilian centers in Germany and Japan. And some have argued that the insistence on unconditional surrender is itself a violation of just war standards because that demands that the opponent give up its sovereignty, effectively ending its existence as a nation. This is destroying the enemy rather than stopping the wrong he is committing.

This doesn’t show that the Allies’ going to war wasn’t, on the whole, justified, but it does remind us that discrete acts in the course of even a justifiable military campaign have to be evaluated one by one. A just cause doesn’t give us a blank check.