Criteria For A Just War example essay topic

According to the September 22nd edition of Star-Ledger, Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University stated, "the mainstream media have turned into a 'war-mobilizing mechanism' leading to intense indoctrination of the public in support of a military response... We are living in a society that is so convinced of its own innocence that it is ready to embark on its own 'holy war'". He emphasized that if and when the United States decides to use force, it should do so only in conformance with international law and according to the principles of a "just" war. Falk continues by saying "These would include making it illegal to target non-military sites or people, making sure the response is proportionate and ensuring that no unnecessary pain is inflicted.

In Bush's address (Thursday night) I saw no signs of sensitivity to any of these limits, no deference to the authority of the United Nations". Contrary to Professor Falk's opinion, the leaders of our country do consider the factors of collateral damage before undertaking actions of war. In addition, the complexities and possible outcomes of the military action are measured against the criterion of a "just war". A similar discussion ensued prior to the Gulf War, before moving to turn back Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. There was a good interview on the CNN website on the topic of a "just war". This interview in particular gave multiple points as to fair and just wars.

I do not believe there is any disagreement that non-violent methods of resolving conflicts must always be used, even if there is a chance of minimal success. Unfortunately, peaceful means do not always produce the best resolution to conflict. When war seems inevitable, it is important for the country's leaders to determine if a war-like conflict is "just". This mode of thoughtful decision-making dates back to St. Augustine and has been highly developed over the centuries; initially among Catholic theologians, but the principles have become generally accepted, as Professor Falk's own statements imply. It rests on the lawful right to self-defense when other methods have failed. Making a commitment to a "just war" must meet four criteria, not just the one cited by Professor Falk.

First, the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be grave, lasting and certain. Second, all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective. Third, there must be serious prospects of success. Finally, the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders greater than the evil to be eliminated. Using these four criteria, I believe that the "War on Terrorism" declared by this country does meet the criteria for a just war.

It is interesting to note that the Catholic Church, in a document known as "Gaudium et Spes", in the mid 1960's, states it is the responsibility of all citizens and all governments to avoid war. Although, "As long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed". The United Nations exists today as it did in the mid 1960's; yet, it is not recognized as having the necessary competence and power to deal with the current situation. The United Nations may be adept at resolving disputes over boundaries or fishing rights between member sovereign nations, but not will equipped to deal with the multinational war on terror. The terrorists are not members of a single country. Even the members of the United Nations feel the current situation is outside of the realm of their power or influence.

With regard to the first criterion of a "just war", the damage has been grave, lasting and certain. More than 3,000 people were killed in the September 11 attacks. The evidence points to Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network. Bin Laden has been linked to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and has claimed credit for the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 224 and injured almost 5,000. In addition, evidence links him to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. The United States has tried since 1996 without success to get the cooperation of the Taliban against terrorists.

The Taliban was provided specific evidence of al-Qaeda's responsibility for the embassy attacks but have refused to cooperate. The terrorists appear to be motivated by a fringe form of Islam, of which the teachings are contradicted by mainstream Islam. This is particularly striking on the Islamic equivalent of the "just war" teaching. Despite the tradition of "jihad" -- a term which means "struggle", including the personal struggle against evil and to obey God, not just "holy war" -- Islamic tradition has a broadly similar "just war" teaching, which expressly forbids the killing of noncombatants.

There is no negotiating with bin Laden, by his own account. He has declared a "holy war" on "Jews and Crusaders". He says, "Every state and every civilization and culture has to resort to terrorism under certain circumstances for the purpose of abolishing tyranny and corruption... The terrorism we practice is of the commendable kind for it is directed at the tyrants and the aggressors and the enemies of Allah... In today's wars, there are no morals, and it is clear that mankind has descended to the lowest degrees of decadence and oppression".

Bin Laden has declared war on all Americans, not just military personnel. He believes "that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind. We do not have to differentiate between military or civilian. As far as we are concerned, they are all targets, and this is what the fatwah says... The fatwah is general (comprehensive) and it includes all those who participate in, or help the Jewish occupiers in killing Muslims".

The New York Times contains a report by the British government outlining the evidence establishing points 1 and 2 (pages B 4 and B 5). We face a different kind of war than we have traditionally known. President Bush and his administration have warned that it will be a long one, and that we can expect no obvious resolution, as there is when an enemy state's army surrenders. Moreover, it is a complicated situation both operationally and politically. Operationally, success depends at least as much on diplomatic, public relations and nonmilitary investigation as on military action. Politically, bin Laden's motive appears to be precisely to trigger a war between Islam and what he calls "Jew and Crusaders" which would both topple moderate Muslim regimes, which he calls traitors to Islam, and also dissolve the United States as, in his view, the hand of Allah dissolved the Soviet Union.

This is not a "crusade" against Islam; in fact, its success depends on solidarity with moderate Islamic leaders and people. Removing bin Laden, by capture or killing, will not end the threat of terrorism -- but it will greatly reduce it. There is nothing inherent in the situation that would prevent our success. Finally, the use of arms must not create greater evils than it is trying to remove. Contrary to what Professor Falk said, the administration has shown every intention of abiding by this principle. While moving against bin Laden and the ruling Taliban that protects him, President Bush and his advisers have clearly stated that they have no quarrel with the Afghan people.

Instead of dropping bombs on them, our government has started to airlift food to alleviate the acute distress caused by more than twenty years of uninterrupted war. There has not been any military action merely for the sake of taking action or assuaging any supposed public desire for revenge. Thus I conclude that the war against terrorism meets all four criteria of a "just war". Sanity, virtue, and a sense of humor all depend, though in different ways, on having a proper sense of proportion. I suggest that early critics of the war on terrorism lack the necessary sense of proportion. They take themselves too seriously, and the situation and the ideas it contains not seriously enough.

Bibliography

Interview, Reasons to Fight" April 2001 web 9 March 2002 "What to do Next: The War on Terrorism" 6 October 2001 web 10 March 2002 America Attacks Back San Diego Union Tribune.
October 2001 Gaudium et Spes, Catholic document, Boston Press 1964.
Inside al-Qaeda New York Times. November 2001 May 1998 interview with ABC reporter John Miller (video tape) The Network of Terrorism, Washington, DC Department of State (2001) web Transcript of Osama Bin Laden video tape (electronic resource), Bin Laden, Osama Sept 11 Terrorist Attacks, 2001.
United States Department of defense, 2001.