Tom Woods
interviews Laurie Calhoun regarding Just War Theory. Woods prefaced his podcast by saying that he's largely come to reject it so he mostly assents to her reasoning. I'm sure Woods, as someone who previously believed in Just War theory, changed his position with great consideration. And I'm sure that Calhoun's book contains a more exhaustive and systematic treatment of the subject.
I'm saying this because Calhoun did not present a good case for rejecting the theory.
Objection: The principles of Just War tend to be used platitudinally by warmongers.
Here I'm going to invoke the principle
abusus non tollit usum, i.e., abuse does not take away use. The fact that an evildoer justifies his behavior in terms of something good does
not somehow invalidate the good thing. The example she uses is the
just cause principle which she says doesn't mean anything other than that the leader wants to wage war. Yet the fact that she
does allow for the use of self defense means that she views self defense as a just cause for violence. Only complete pacifists might be said to deny there being any sort of just cause for violence.
Objection: There have been no cases where someone has supported a war, then become familiar with Just War theory. who then proceeded to withdraw support for war.
Hard to say but it'd hard to believe there hasn't been a single leader in history who wanted war and, conferring with a bishop or priest, decided against it. History is mainly about the wars that do get fought, not the wars that aren't. There are probably better examples, but General Paulus choosing to surrender rather than fight to the death, as ordered by Hitler, in Stalingrad is an application of the Just War principle of fighting only when there is a reasonable chance of success. Had the Japanese adopted these principles, they might have chosen to eschew human wave tactics and saved the lives of countless people.
Objection: The "Last Resort" requirement doesn't preclude anyone from doing anything
The fact that rulers often go to war under the pretense of it being the "last resort" when it often isn't probably means that rulers tend to be unprincipled. The fact that Christians lie and steal constantly doesn't mean that the Ten Commandments are invalid and should be discarded.
If Calhoun accepts that violence is acceptable in some cases, i.e., self defense and neighborhood defense - though perhaps not defense of neighbor extended generally, then war can be resorted to. But if war
can be resorted to, how can any person who desires peace not suggest that it be the
last resort?
What place should "going to war" be placed among the options politicians have?
Objection: George Bush, Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, etc. all use Just War Theory to justify their aggression
Again, abusus non tollit usum. There's also a kind of fallacy of association, i.e., equivocation, going on here.
Objection: It is the composition fallacy to extend the right of individual self defense to groups.
This is trickier. As someone who adheres to methodological individualism, I tend to agree. But if someone is part of an invading army, they have assumed a collective identity voluntarily. So it is appropriate to say, "defend against the German Sixth Army" whereas it is not appropriate to say "defeat Germany". The people living in Germany are not necessarily the same as the Germans who freely joined the German government/military to initiate aggression against others.
And if an aggressor collectivizes me (despite my identifying otherwise) and decides to aggress against that collective, i.e., Americans, then I am in danger and have the moral options for self-defense that result.
Objection: War is being waged abroad which is analogous to a neighbor who creeps into another neighbors house and kills him because he thinks he may try to harm him later. This is a crime in civil society
Preëmptive war is very difficult to justify.* However, if a murderer is active, even if they have not initiated aggression against you or your particular neighborhood, using violence to stop that murderer is (in my mind) acceptable. When the Soviets were conquering Eastern Europe, certainly an attack on Soviet military positions in occupied territory by previously non-belligerent actors would not be a crime - especially given the Soviet ideological basis of violent revolution to usher in Communist dominion.
Objection: Just War theory is actually not a limit to war but rather the most dangerous weapon for a bellicose leader.
How about a theory that suggests that what is best in life is conquest and indiscriminate killing of military and civilians? A worldview that glorifies death in combat? The Vikings and Mongols show what unlimited war can be like. Although the type of warfare practiced in World War II is sometimes called Total War, had it been unlimited, then Dresden and Hiroshima would not have been the exception.
Objection: Just War states that soldiers must obey the authority no matter what
Certainly not. There are many examples of soldiers who refused to kill innocent people and who paid for their insubordination with their lives. These usually became saints. It is absurd to think that Augustine or Aquinas would believe those soldiers would have been better off following orders on account of Just War theory.
As an aside, she suggests that the "legitimate authority" as divinely appointed is a medieval Catholic phenomenon and that it was the Protestant Reformation which brought the idea of fallibility to rulers. This is incorrect. Divine authority resting in political leaders predates Christianity and the Catholic Church; it is not at all specific to medieval Catholic Europe. Pharaoh was a god, the Roman emperor was a god, the Chinese emperor ruled by the Mandate of Heaven, etc. Indeed it is one of the hallmarks of Judaism and Christianity to reject political leaders as being divine which typically led to conflicts between political and religious authorities. Ironically, the idea of secular authority as supreme gained traction in Western Europe (in the East, the issue was largely decided along caesaropapist lines) because of Protestantism. German princes since 1648 were greater authorities than the Church, and the King of England was the head of the English Church.
Objection: The doctrine of double effect in warfare is really based on the idea that "we are good" and "they are bad". For example, the US government justifies civilian casualties in Vietnam because they were an unintended consequence of bombing military targets but hypocritically declaims the civilian deaths from the 9/11 attacks.
It's true, almost self-evident, that there are few who engage in wars without believing the enemy is bad. But while we cannot read men's souls, some attempt to determine intent does inform our evaluation of whether some act of violence was justified.
Flying planes into the World Trade Center buildings is as clear a deliberate attack on civilian targets as can be. In this case, it is clear that the people who perpetrated those attacks were unjust under Just War theory (and any theory where civilians are considered innocent)
even if the attackers justified their cause on account of US interventionism in Saudi Arabia. Punishing the conspirators ought to be uncontroversial.
A retaliatory strike on account of the attack on the Pentagon, however, isn't as clear cut. The Pentagon
is a military target and the people working there
do have significant responsibility for the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraqi sanctions, etc. Live by the sword, die by the sword.**
Bombing, with its attendant "collateral damage", has always been hotly debated by Just War theorists. Just as economy of the United States is often mis-characterized as a Free Market system, so too is the foreign policy of the US Government mis-characterized as a Just War based policy. In some ways it is, in some ways it isn't.
It's clear Calhoun does not place much stock in the Principle of Double Effect because in her mind, intention is unimportant. Though she did not state as much, she seems to believe in a Consequentialist or Utilitarian ethic. One of these days I'll go into why that view is actually unrealistic.
Objection: Just War is always justified because it is interpreted by leaders to be so - it is their prerogative.
Just because Obama claims the prerogative for justifying the bombing of Syria doesn't mean he actually has it. Just War criteria can be used by individuals, as moral actors, to help them determine whether some action is permissible.
Some examples:
The German state having agreed to a certain land border with Poland, nevertheless decides to invade. As a Polish soldier, you might face a number of problem situations that Just War theory can help solve. Is it okay to bomb a German column inside the Polish border? Yes. Even if the column is far from your town? Yes. Is it okay to bomb a German children's hospital? No. Even with a direct order? No. Is it okay to lead a cavalry lancing charge against tanks? No. Is it okay to ignore all overtures for peace coming from the German government? No.
These might seem obvious, but they are only obvious because of the moral framework within which Just War theory exists. There are many difficult questions that Just War theory does not clearly address which is why the ethics surrounding violence continue to be debated. But to dismiss Just War the way Calhoun does? Madness.
Objection: The Just War injunction to treat soldiers as human beings is pointless as we see governments fail to do this all the time
Again, abusus non tollit usum.
* In the case of the United States which enjoys the security of the two largest oceans on Earth and peaceful relations with its two much weaker border nations, it is nearly impossible. Of the nations on Earth, the US - assuming the international framework - should have been the last nation to have ever considered invading Iraq.
** Usually this is taken in a negative way but I interpret it as the recognition that violence begets violence, even if completely justified. If I killed a home invader, I should have some expectation that friends of the invader might want to exact revenge on me and so on. Those consequences that attend violence should be part of the calculus involved in deciding whether to employ it.
Applied to a nation's soldiers, they should know that they've forfeited the presumption of innocence by choosing (obviously mitigated in cases of draft) to join a group that believes in violently executing the will of the state. But it is possible to maintain the sanction of Just War theory if politicians act accordingly - the Swiss are the best example.
