That’s my point. There are no just wars, only necessary ones.

“I submit that a war is just, or not just, in the eyes of an individual based at least as much on their personal politics as on any mythical standard that the victors create later to justify their conduct. Perhaps more so.”

In war, truth is the first casualty. ~Aeschylus

I didn’t mean to say WWII was just. I was trying to show that even just war proponents have a spectrum or range with some wars being closer and others being further from just.

More of a dove just war person will make the standards higher for what is just…and the realpolitik type of person will talk about pre-emptive anything being ok.

This weekend I’ll try to remember and post some of the non-violent resistance movements other than MLK and Ghandi. It’s in one of my books.

Cheers.

I agree with you. A big reason why we can’t agree on the word “health” is because of that personal background and culture. It doesn’t mean there isn’t a defintion, it just means we are clouded a bit on that one.

And just war is no different given our “personal politics.” That 5% was probably even less than that in wars previous to WWI. Now I have to go look it up! I’ve seen paintings from the Civil War when those in battle would fight in a valley below, and civilian on lookers would watch from hills above!

This means that for centuries jus an bello and collateral damage was much easier to curb than say the last 100 years. Should this change our standards for just war, or should this say something about the way we wage war today?

Cheers.

PS I understand there have been tyrannical military leaders who intentionally preyed on civilians before the last 100 years!

Like my spelling!

This means . . . what, exactly? We played fairer? The jump from a 5% to a 67% casualty rate between WW’s 1 and 2 does not simply reflect an increase in collateral damage, but that civilians were specifically being targeted. Fire-bombing German civilians at Dresden and vaporing Japanese civilians at N&H goes well beyond “But not so perfect for jus an bello”. These would be war crimes today, and probably were then. But it was a just war because it cleared the jus as bellum hurdle? I submit that a war is just, or not just, in the eyes of an individual based at least as much on their personal politics as on any mythical standard that the victors create later to justify their conduct. Perhaps more so.

That doesn’t excuse bombings in Germany (Dresden, etc.) or Japan (N & H).

In this war our standard for jus as bellum was good (unless you are a Pearl Harbor/FDR conspiracy theorist). But not so perfect for jus an bello (although much much better than the axis regimes).

Another thing to consider is how warfare changed in WWI (and again in WWII) and for the first time we had huge numbers of civilian deaths as collateral damage (ignoring famine/disease deaths which were previous to WWI). This affects jus an bello?

Is our involvement in what are essentially civil wars elsewhere necessary? If so, when or why? Maybe examples it wasn’t good for us to have that kind of involvement?

Cheers.

* http://www.world-war-2.info/statistics/

It probably is easier to take a particular war and see where it stacks up. And you begin to see a spectrum. Maybe if this Iraq war is near the least “just” side, then WWII is on the other end. I don’t know?

Cheers.

– Something like the “bush doctrine” which equates terrorists with countries that harbor terrorists is dubious. Unless we are attacking Saudi Arabia and I hadn’t heard about it? And even if followed through it almost completely destroys any measure for jus in bello as we are clearly seeing in Iraq. Unless we could consider the welfare of those in Iraq or the millions of refugees fleeing Iraq a good thing. 4.2 million plus have left because it is so good in Iraq? This will go down as one of the largest mass exodus in history and all because the US has made things so good in Iraq. Jus an bello was butchered by the pre-invasion “planning.”

– lastly, I’ll say that this form of terrorism which is a type of religious totalitarianism can not be conquered through military action alone. It is an ideological war, and facing them only on their level is a mistake. That is why Guantanamo, rendition, torture (or missing video), Abu-Ghraib, parts of the Patriot Act, imperialistic/individualistic arrogance, and other errors have been so damaging. Democracy, civil rights, fighting extreme poverty, etc are ways to beat this. And maybe this is where things could get “spiritual”, but I’ll stop! Ha!

Cheers.

And isn’t comparing MLK and GWB quotes a bit unfair? Wouldn’t that be like comparing Al Gore with a real scientist? :)