Just War With A Very Persuasive Argument example essay topic

Kevin Kearney March 23, 2003 History 220 Walzer, Michael. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations. New York: Basic Books, 1992.368 pp. Michael Walzer first wrote Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations in the years following the Vietnam War, and unfortunately its premise on morality in war will always remain as relevant as it was then as it is now, with conflict between states forever existing. Michael Walzer is one of the most prominent social critics in North America and in this book, he explores two main concepts, the justice of war and the justice in war in a great depth, and uses numerous historical references to support his claims. It is a very well configured piece, written in such a way of persuasion that your personal view on morality in war may ultimately change after delving into thoughts for several hundred pages.

To an overwhelming majority of people, the words 'war' and 'morality' have seemingly opposing meanings, however in the preface to his book, Walzer points out that 'whether or not its specific terminology is adapted, just-war theory has always played a part in official argument about war' (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater detail the ways that war has been perceived and how this impacts the topics of war and morality, and in doing so, he provides an intelligently structured and persuasive argument that can be viewed within a moral context. He addresses this topic both from the view of the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the individual. Walzer takes the position that an individual should fight only for private and personal reasons rather then from nationalistic feelings because he feels that it is crucial Kearney 2 that this decision should be freely chosen and that it constitutes one of the crucial requirements for a 'just' war. Walzer defines a 'just war' as a 'limited war,' and that just wars are governed by a set of rules, designed to prevent, as much as possible, 'the use of violence and coercion against non-combatant populations' (Walzer XVII); On the other hand, a limited war attempts to establish the way things were prior to the aggression taking place. Aside from extreme cases, just wars do not have legitimate reasons for reaching beyond this goal, including the replacing of the aggressor's regime or altering its politics.

Accomplishing these goals would require a prolonged task for the aggressor nation and an extreme constraint of its civilian population, overthrowing its sovereignty which is exactly what is condemned by his aggression discussion. In a 'just' war the combat is between combatants only. A perfect example of this occurred in the Gulf War; The pilots in the Gulf War had specific orders to support this requirement, because if they were unable to get a clear shot on their assigned targets, they were instructed to return with their bombs and missiles intact. Walzer also addresses the rules of war as applied to soldiers on foot involved in battle. Walzer's central principle on warfare is that soldiers on both sides of battle have the equal right to kill.

Under this central principle are two groups of restrictions; The first group of these pertains to when and how soldiers can kill, and the second details whom they can kill. An observer cannot decipher between war and murder without such limitations. Walzer stays primarily concerned with the second group of restrictions. Traditionally, these protected groups have included people who are not actively engaged in the act of war (i.e. women, children, priests etc. ), simplistically expressed by Walzer as Kearney 3"They can try to kill me, and I can try to kill them.

But it is wrong to cut the throats of their wounded or to shoot them down when they are trying to surrender' (Walzer 38). War is generally thought of as a business of the state, however it can be considered a matter of personal volition if men choose to join an army and participate in a war. Catholic writers, for example, have argued that Catholics should not volunteer for military service if the war is known to be unjust. In contrast, Walzer argues that an individual soldier can make moral decisions within the context of war, using the Nazi General, Erwin Rommel, to bolster his point.

Rommel fought a 'bad war well,' not only militarily but also morally (Walzer 36). On October 28, 1942, Hitler issued the infamous 'Commando Order' ruling that all enemy soldiers found behind German lines should be executed at once (Walzer 38). Instead of implementing this order among his troops, Rommel burned it. With aggression continually existing in the world, people are forced to decide how they will react to it.

Nonviolent actions have often been proposed as an alternative to counter aggression, but Walzer points out that this strategy, when understood correctly, still encompasses aspects of war. For example, in the Gulf War when Iraq first invaded Kuwait, the first action taken against the aggressor was an economic blockade. Walzer points out that although the blockade required no military enforcement, it was practically still an act of war. Likewise, in discussing the alternatives of non-violence, he points out that Gandhi advised German Jews that rather then fight back against Nazi tyranny, they should commit suicide. Walzer argues that such a stance is an example of how non-violence, 'under extreme conditions, collapses into Kearney 4 violence directed at oneself rather than at one's murderers' (Walzer 332). Despite the appeal of non-violence and the success that Gandhi had with this method of obtaining Indian independence from Great Britain, an individual cannot reasonably disagree with Walzer's assessment of Gandhi's advice.

Walzer's book does a well executed job of clarifying the debate over what constitutes a 'just' war with a very persuasive argument. Many Americans criticized our government for not following up on the victory in the Gulf War by occupying Iraq and deposing its dictator. Walzer explains how limits have to be set on power and in warfare in order for those opposing aggressors to avoid the trap of becoming aggressors themselves. As Walzer points out, the Kuwait regime that US intervention restored to power was little better for the Kuwait people than their Iraqi invaders.

However, the ultimate fate of this regime was placed back in the hands of the Kuwaiti people disregarding our attempt at improvement. Reading this book was both uplifting, in that Walzer does an excellent job of developing a framework to understanding what should and should not be done during wartime, as well as depressing, in realizing that war will only evolve and forever exist. The limits that a 'just' war places on the use of aggression between states for both states and individuals, according to Walzer, offers a rational and moral way of perceiving modern warfare. He ends his text with the comment that 'The restraint of war is the beginning of peace' essentially summing up his argument, though will this 'end' ever arrive? (Walzer 335). This book offers a sane way of perceiving morality within the insanity of war.