Free Essay

Just War

In: Social Issues

Submitted By classmateessay
Words 3075
Pages 13
September 11, 2001 will be a day that none of us forget for as long as we live. It is a day that each of us will remember exactly what we were doing when we heard the news reports. Hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, another one into the Pentagon and a forth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, failing to reach its intended target because of heroic passengers. With nearly 3,000 civilians murdered, the United States began the “War on Terror” that targeted organizations designated as terrorist and those regimes accused of supporting them. The “War on Terror” took the fight to the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq. The Theory of Just War is an ethical look to help determine whether the use of armed forces is justified or unjustified. This Theory is guided by three sets of criteria: the right to go war (jus ad bellum), the rules of engagement of war (jus in bello) and justice after war (jus post bellum). While these wars have been surrounded with controversy and claims of being unjust, the “War on Terror” is a just war that does not exceed the moral boundaries set in the Just War Theory and today's society?
The first criterion for a just war is the right to go to war. Is there a just cause? Will war be declared by a competent authority? Has all other options for peace been exhausted? What are the chances for success? Before the dust for the fallen towers settled and while eighty-six other countries mourned the loss of loved ones that were indiscriminately killed by Al Qaeda operatives, leaders around the globe heeded their citizens’ call to war, forming a coalition against terrorists. President George Bush stated “our 'war on terror' begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" (Wikipedia.org, 2012). Congress approved a joint resolution to allowed President Bush to start the War on Terror in order to protect the United States from further terrorist attacks.
The war in Afghanistan meant to find Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice along with other Al Qaeda members responsible for these terrorists’ attacks against the U.S. Since Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and the Taliban regime supported them, this war was also meant to remove the regime and put an end the Al Qaeda entity in Afghanistan. There have been an increased number of casualties due to conflicts engendered by the fraud of the 2009 presidential election in Afghanistan. Attempts to persuade the Taliban to leave Afghanistan failed and it was decided the only way to stop the growth and spread of Al Qaeda and put an end to the Taliban Regime was to go to war to eliminate both groups.
Iraq has been a great threat to our national security and to its allies that is why when we heard that they might have developed and possessed weapon of mass destruction. We were so determined one way or another to put a stop to that. That country has used poison gas against Iran and also on its own people. Research has shown that Iraq sponsors terrorism because some of its weapons of mass destruction have been used by tyrants to kill many innocent people. Iraq has violated repeatedly many UN Security Council resolutions breaking international laws and failing to allow UN inspectors into the country to investigate these violations proved that there was no other choice but war. Even though Iraq has not been a direct threat to US, it was important to make sure that we stop their production of mass destruction weapons and sharing with terrorist organizations that could attack the U.S. or our allies. It was also important that the dictatorship regime should be replaced and to implement democracy and the only sure way for us to make it happen and eliminate any threat present was to declare war to Iraq.
The only criteria that was difficult to show a just war is the probability of success. We would not be fighting a normal war nor be conducted on a normal battlefield. There is also the challenge of determining friend from foe because of the civilian environment. However, despite the fact it could be a long war; the probability for success was great. In fact, there has not been another attack on the U.S. since the War on Terror began. Intelligence gathered has helped provide information to eliminate terrorist leader and stop additional attacks. Preventing further attacks was the reason the war on terror started and thus proving the wars were just.
The battlefields for the War on Terror as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not your typical battlefields. Gone are the days where armies would line up against each other and the strongest, best equipped army survived. These wars would all test the principles of “Jus in Bello”, the second criteria for a Just War and describes how militaries are should act during a war. Distinctions, proportionality, military necessity, fair treatment of prisoners of war and not using weapons or methods that are considered “evil” are the principles of “Jus in Bello” (Wikipedia.org, 2012). When Al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11th, they completely disregarded these rules when they deliberately attacked civilians and civilian buildings as well as continuing their attacks on civilians with suicide bombers instead of attacking military combatants. The rules of distinction prohibit purposely attacking civilians.
The United States has made the distinction to find and attack Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives during the course of the war on terror and during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S. has specifically worked to ensure all aspects of Jus in Bello are followed by using some of the most advanced weapons systems available. The Tomahawk cruise missiles and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) are smart weapons that are guided to their target by GPS coordinates that can be changed in flight. During Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, The U.S. made the distinction that mosques were not targets of the war and that any weapons used surrounding mosques would do minimal damage if any to the mosque. In one incident the U.S. dropped 500 pound bombs on Al Qaeda insurgents near the wall surrounding a mosque but causing no damage to the mosque (CNN.com, 2004). This action follows the rules of distinction and proportionality as well as military necessity. Despite the fact that the mosque was being misused to conduct military operations, the decision was made to “not attack the mosque itself even though it was a lawful military target” (CNN.com, 2004).
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, have also aided the War on Terror to target Top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, his sons and other leaders in Iraq. Over seventy Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders in Afghanistan have been killed by drones. These attacks by drones distinctly identified the targets and allowed the United States to limit collateral damage to command centers being used by these leaders. Controversy has surrounded the drone program though as the number of drone attacks have raised. The main issue is the death of civilians by drone attacks because of false identification. However, since 2006 drones have been used to kill 2,431 Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives while limiting civilian deaths to 139 (Roggio & Mayer, 2012). The value that drones have in a war limits casualties for allied forces and allows leaders, to include the President himself, to pick and choose high value targets to attack (Becker & Shane, 2012).
Another issue facing the use of drones was the targeted killing of U.S. born turned al-Qaida member Anwar al-Awlaki (Epatko, 2011). This attack raises the legal question as to whether or not al-Awlaki’s rights were violated (Epatko, 2011). Despite critics’ complaints, “the State Department’s top lawyer, Harold Koh, has argued that the U.S. may only act out of clear self-defense, targeting people actively plotting to hit us and whose host nations can’t or won’t do the job for us (Crowley, 2011). Targeting al-Awlaki was an act of self-defense and was only done in order to save the lives of other Americans.
One of the most controversial issues for the U.S. during the War on Terror was the questionable treatment of enemy prisoners. Photos showing the humiliation and abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by U.S. military personnel violated society’s moral and ethical laws and values. The torture and abuse of detainees were not just in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and also Cuba (Adam, 2006). Were these actions “just”, no they were not “just” but those that committed these crimes were charged, convicted, and sent to prison (MARTINFROST). Cases like these were not normal and the United States did treat prisoners morally and ethically right. In fact, one soldier, Spc. Joseph Darby, reported the abuse because “It violated everything I personally believed in and all I'd been taught about the rules of war" (Beliefnet.com). Additionally, Col. David E. Quantock, was assigned as the new commander at Abu Ghraib Prison and immediately corrected the improper treatment of prisoners by conducting refresher training on the Geneva Convention Law of Land Warfare, interrogation procedures, and have actively incorporated lessons learned into our current operations to ensure that our Soldiers are as prepared as possible to conduct this demanding mission – and also to ensure all detainees are treated with dignity, respect, and humanity” (Martin, 2007). These abuses also led to the ARMY “banning torture and degrading treatment of prisoners” and this instruction applies to all branches of the U.S. military (CBSNEWS.com).
The last criteria for Jus in Bello are that unlawful or “evil” weapons are not used. Nuclear weapons and biological weapons were not used during any of these wars. If any would have been used, it would have changed the face of the war because of the world’s view on the use of these weapons. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Qaeda has used improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to injure and kill U.S. forces as well as civilians. These weapons would be described as “evil” because they target civilians instead of just military targets. Coalition forces have worked to disarm IEDs to prevent causalities to both military and civilian personnel.
Post war justice or jus post bellum is the third stage of a war and is often overlooked. We have rules in accordance with the Geneva Convention for the other two phases of war, jus ad bellum and jus in bellum but nothing really to regulate the ending. There should be guidance for ethical, moral, political and legal restraint for both the winner and looser of war. We need to develop clear post war principles for our modern wars by a new Geneva Convention where they can be negotiated and drafted internationally (Dr. Brian Orend 2011).
When it comes to the War on Terror, it is tough to see an ethical side of it because terrorism itself is the opposite of ethical. The United States defines terrorism, in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), by “means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets…” which is stating that terrorists fight and attack those that are not combat targets: civilians (CIA 2012). The tough part about fighting the War on Terror is that the opposition is not fighting ethically them. This means that for the United States to end the War on Terror, doing it ethically is not going to be a simple task.
The phrase “War on Terror” is the term adopted by most Americans that describes the ongoing military campaign led by the United States, UK, and their allies which are fighting against the organizations and regimes identified as terrorists (Lewis, S., Reese, S. 2009). This makes ending the “War on Terror” a lot more difficult than most other wars. With many other types of war, it can end as simply as finding an agreement with the opposition, and/or killing the leader of the military force that is controlling them and try to win their country or force over in order to teach them the “proper” way to live. With the War on Terror this is very difficult because there is no country that the U.S. is fighting and terrorists are spread throughout the world with no direct leader of them all. With terrorism, there what’s called “cells” throughout the world that operate sometimes without any direction or leader, and their main focus is causing as much terror as possible in any way possible. Due to this, it is highly unlikely that we will ever truly end the War on Terror, because we will more than likely never end terror.
The best way to ethically end a war that may never end is to formally end the war with our congress, but to keep security measures to protect our country. Before September 11, 2001, our country was already fighting terrorists without the title of a war. It is possible to continue to fight terrorism by these means. The war would be over with, but only to the public’s eye, but the fighting and protection of our country would still be in place. The world will unfortunately never have people that do not want to cause terror, and because of this there will always be a fight against terror. The only ethical way to end this war is to have the terrorists decide to stop causing terror. Since this is anything but possible there will always be the battle against those people: the War on Terror.
In Iraq, clear and achievable goals were set by Americans and Iraqis. The U.S. will promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, accountable and will not be a safe haven for terrorists. The U.S. met their goals of removing the ruthless tyrant from the country as well as removing his government. A democracy was implemented and elections held. Security forces were trained as well as a new military. Slowly, the U.S. left Iraq and turned over operations to the new government. This is how a just war should end. It is now up to Iraq to choose their new direction, their allies and how they will act in a just and ethical way in today’s society.
In Afghanistan, the end of the war is coming to an end. It is not going as smoothly as it did in Iraq. Elective officials continue to be killed and new elections are corrupt. Military and security forces are being trained but have been plagued with being infiltrated by Al Qaeda operatives who then attack U.S. Forces inside their bases. However, Osama Bin Laden was killed during a Special Forces operation and other Al Qaeda leaders have also been killed in targeted strikes. This has reduced the effectiveness of the terrorists and limited their operations. With a 2014 pullout of Afghanistan now set, the ending appears to follow the guidelines in a Just War.
The War on Terror is tough to define according to the Just War Theory. This war has led us to battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to remove terrorists and regimes that support terrorist organizations. These wars were meant to make the world a safer place and prevent further attacks against the United States like the one that happened on September 11, 2001. These wars have been proven to be just as they war initiated by a legitimate government because all other actions had failed in the past. Conduct during the war was ethical and did not go against the rules of engagements set forth by the Just War Theory. Lastly, as the wars are coming to an end, every effort is made to implement a new government and leave the countries better than they were before the wars started. While there may be some bumps in the roads ahead for Iraq and Afghanistan, they are far better off now. Adam, G. (2006, October 01). Abu ghraib, administrative evil, and moral inversion:. Retrieved from http://academic.udayton.edu/RichardGhere/POL 318/Adams_Guy_B.pdf

Becker, J., & Shane, S. (2012, May 29). Secret ‘kill list’ proves a test of obama’s principles and will. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Beliefnet.com. (2004, December). Most inspiring person of 2004. Retrieved from http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/Most-Inspiring-Person-Of-The-Year/2004/Most-Inspiring-Person-of-the-Year-2004.aspx

CBSNEWS.com. (2009, February 11). U.s. army bans torture of prisoners. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-224_162-1976599.html

CIA (2012) CIA & War on Terrorism. Terrorism FAQs. Retrieved from : https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html

CNN.com. (2004, April 07). Marines: U.s. bombed iraqi mosque wall. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-07/world/fallujah.strike_1_muslim-house-mosque-compound-marines?_s=PM:WORLD

Crowley, M. (2011, September 30). Was killing american al qaeda cleric anwar al-awlaki legal?. Retrieved from http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/30/was-killing-american-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-legal/

Epatko, L. (2011, October 10). Controversy surrounds increased use of u.s. drone strikes . Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/10/drone-strikes-1.html

Frost, M. (n.d.). Abu ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Retrieved from http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/abu_ghraib2.html

Lewis, S., Reese, S. (2009) What is the War on Terror? Framing through the eyes of journalists. Retrieved from: http://journalism.utexas.edu/sites/journalism.utexas.edu/files/attachments/reese/what-is-war-terror-framing-lewis-reese.pdf

Martin, J. (2007, February 23). Secarmy sees abu ghraib. Retrieved from http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=469978

Roggio, B., & Mayer, A. (2012, December 01). Charting the data for us airstrikes in pakistan, 2004 - 2012. Retrieved from http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

Wikipedia.org. (2012, December 06). War on terror. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Wikipedia.org. (2012, December 04). Just war theory. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory

Similar Documents

Premium Essay

Just War

...Just War theory is a doctrine, also referred to as a tradition, of military ethics studied by theologians, ethicists, policy makers and military leaders. The purpose of the doctrine is to ensure war is morally justifiable through a series of criteria, all of which must be met for a war to be considered just. The criteria are split into two groups: ‘the right to go to war’ and ‘right conduct in war’ . The first concerns the morality of going to war and the second with moral conduct within war. Recently there have been calls for the inclusion of a third category of just war theory - jus post bellum - dealing with the morality of post-war settlement and reconstruction. Just War theory postulates that war, while very terrible, is not always the worst option. There may be responsibilities so important, atrocities which can be prevented or outcomes so undesirable they justify war. Origins The Indian epic, the Mahabharata, offers one of the first written discussions of a 'just war'. In it, one of five ruling brothers asks if the suffering caused by war can ever be justified, and then a long discussion ensues between the siblings, establishing criteria like proportionality, just means, just cause, and fair treatment of captives and the wounded. The war in Mahabharata is preceded by context that develops the "just cause" for the war including last minute efforts to reconcile differences to avoid war. At the beginning of the war, there is the discussion of "just conduct" appropriate...

Words: 1514 - Pages: 7

Premium Essay

Just War

...justly a moral criminal for fighting in a war that is either illegal or unjust? This question is at the centre of a new debate that pits a widely held and legally embedded principle of war, that soldiers have equal rights and responsibilities regardless of whether they are on the ‘side of the just’ or not, against a set of unusual new arguments (Rodin and Shue, 2008). Most Americans see the attacks of 9/11 as an unprecedented act of terrorism. Issues related to the response to these attacks have convinced many observers that the current international law regime is an outmoded relic. In particular, they say, the tradition of a just war, which provides the moral basis for most aspects of international law concerning war, stands in need of major revision. The just war is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things: • taking human life is seriously wrong • states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice • protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought. Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none (Rodin and Shue, 2008). A utilitarian approach is “the greatest good for the greatest number.” This can be applied to the theory of “just war.” For utilitarian the end justifies...

Words: 1614 - Pages: 7

Free Essay

Just War Theory

...Running header: Just War Theory The Just War Theory Regarding the War on Terrorism Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University Abstract The modern interpretation of the Just War Theory list seven conditions which must met in order for a war to be considered “Just” (jus ad bellum). This paper demonstrates that, while it has been suggested that all wars, even the current war on terrorism, are unjust, the facts remain that any war that meets each of the seven criteria is a just war, regardless of opinion. Throughout the ages man has always looked to bring about the end of war, or when war has been waged to minimize the destruction caused when nations war. According to the text;”these rules were worked out in the late Middle Ages by the so-called Schoolmen or Scholars, building on the Roman law and early Christian thinkers such as Augustine and Ambrose. (The Moral of the Story, 2006) These rules were developed to first, deter wars, but when determined necessary, to limit the scope and suffering from the war. While not completely universal in scope, most advanced western societies have embraced the theory of just war as a bases for determining when, and if, a war is justified. As set forth by the Schoolmen, there are seven criteria that must be considered and met before nations can engage in war. They are; the Last Resort, a Just Cause, a Legitimate, Competent Authority, Comparative Justice, Right Intention, Probability of Success...

Words: 2037 - Pages: 9

Free Essay

Unjust and Just Wars

...Just and Unjust Wars Do people ever fight unjust wars?  I believe people do fight unjust wars.  An unjust war is when one group tries to take over another group.  This can be because of power, religious beliefs, economic gain, etc.  The online definition I found for unjust war is “any conflict in which one party will attempt to enforce dominance on a different party. This may be carried out for a number of reasons like power, economic gain, religious differences and ethnic cleansing. Theory of unjust war is contrasted with just war theory” (ask.com).  An unjust war is fought with the wrong intentions.  If a group hasn’t tried all non-violent options to solve their issue, then I feel that the war they engage in is unjust. A good example of an unjust war is the war that is going on in Iraq.  This war has been going on for over eleven years now.  During this time span there have been no real answers to what we have accomplished, but yet our soldiers are still dying along with Iraqi civilians.  In addition to the lives lost, our economy is horrible with a big impact being from oil and gas prices.  Even though immense fighting still exists, our troops need to start leaving Iraq.  How long must we continue to fight a war that seems to be leading us nowhere?  Also, ever since the beginning of the human race, there has been war.  One group feels that they can take over another group and not only take over their land, but also use their resources and people for their own profit...

Words: 520 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Just War Theory

... 1 | MUHAMMAD NAZRI BIN MOHMUD HUSSIN | 1031189 | 1 | | | | | Just War Theory: An Introduction. Just war theory is an interesting idea which constitutes both elements of ethics and politics to form a theory that describe the ethical and political relationship between states and sovereignty. Just War theory can be describes as an attempt to reconcile war with morality. Its main objective was to give justification for a state to launch an attack towards another state provided they have a valid reason to do so. From this we can come to define just war theory as a theory that specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought (BBC, 2014). Just War theory is often associated with Christianity as it was first developed through biblical teachings by Christian theologians, St Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Even though Just war theory started from biblical teaching it does not mean that Christianity endorses violence or war but instead the ultimate goal is peace. War can only serve as the last resort action to achieve peace. After Christianity become dominant in the Roman civilization, the demand for a theory to justify the act of war lead St. Augustine to propose the Just War theory that was driven from biblical teachings (Catholic Answer, n.d). This was later perfected by St. Thomas Aquinas to form the Just War Theory that we know today. In his...

Words: 2655 - Pages: 11

Free Essay

Just War Teory

...iustum or the Just War Theory is a military ethics doctrine derived from Episcopal philosophy of the Roman Catholic Church. As studied today, the Just War Theory is considered hugely informed by the Christian understanding of the justifications of wars of invasion. In ethicist literature as in moral theology and policy making, the Just War Theory is associated with the belief that conflicts can be justified under certain philosophical, political and religious criteria. This paradigm dates back to the times of Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Roman statesman, philosopher, lawyer, theorist and constitutionalist. The connection of the theory to medieval Christian theory and particularly, contemporary Catholicism is in the works of Thomas Aquinas and Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis (Gutman & Rieff, 2000). The former, also called Thomas of Aquin was an Italian Dominican priest, a theologian and a philosopher. The latter, also called St. Augustine, Blessed Augustine or Augustine of Hippo, was a onetime Bishop of Hippo Regius, a philosopher and theologian. This paper describes the tenets of the just war theory derived from the works of these philosophers and the utility of the theory within contemporary warfare. Specific focus is on the justification of the US invasion of Iraq and the consequences thereof. In the works of these three philosophers, the Just War Theory took a Christian connotation of the Roman Empire’s view of warfare. The Christian understanding of provocation to war and the ethics...

Words: 979 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Just and Unjust Wars

...Morality of War Nicholas S. Chavez University of Phoenix Introduction War has been around since the beginning of time; and the causes always differ from the last. Many questions arise in a society because of it, such as death, casualties due to involvement, the overall outcome projected, etc. The most highly debatable topic pertaining to any war that those causes play a factor in is whether it is justified or not. Sacrifices are made overseas as well as on the home front with the families of the men and women giving their lives for their country. In turn, those sacrifices can make those families believe their loss could have been for an unjust cause, making it difficult for war to be supported. On the other hand, there are sacrifices in a war taking place today, and have in the past that families and the ones fighting see as justifiable. To determine the justifiability of war, one must consider all sides and all factors, as well as their effect on the overall society. Sacrifices Made When a loved one is deployed overseas to defend his/her country, all that can get them through, is knowing that their family is waiting for them and hoping and praying that nothing happens to them. The death of a loved one, which many fortunate people, don’t have to experience, is extremely hard on a family and delivers a crushing blow which can cause anyone to break down. When a family member passes away from being sent overseas, it can take a toll on how someone feels about a war and if...

Words: 1761 - Pages: 8

Free Essay

‘There Are No Just Causes for War’ Essay

...‘There are no just causes for war’ Many argue that there are just reasons for going to war however others state that there are no just reason at all, some reasons to go to war can be fighting for human rights or defending your religion however these can be overseen due to the amount of innocent people who die during war. A just reason for war may be to restore or protect human rights. Many people will claim or demand for better human rights and will want to oppose anyone who will go against them, this is a just reason for war as people are standing together and uniting as one to get what they want which is a better life. Augustine said that a just cause for going to war was ‘defending from attack’, if human rights were violated citizens may feel attacked and under threat therefore in order to restore peace they will have to go to war as they will see this as the only sensible response. The general rule is that only those people fighting you are legitimate targets of attack. Those who are not fighting should not be attacked as this would violate their human rights. Another just cause for going to war is self-defence; the clearest just cause is acting against an aggressor, for example in an invasion, many people are patriotic and would rather die instead of giving up their country to invaders therefore will start a war as a sense of self defence. Augustine said that a just cause for war was ‘recapturing things taken’; this view can be used here as invaders would be trying to...

Words: 648 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Just War Theory

...War is a tricky subject, and in this case after the attacks from ISIS on our embassy’s, after the attacks on American civilians, we still cannot go to war according to Just War Theory and our moral values, as badly as the American people may want to go to war, we cannot and must not engage ISIS militarily with a full standing army, we have to punish them in other ways. Just War Theory is conducted in three parts, the initiation of war, known as jus ad bellum, the conducting of the war itself, jus in bello, and finally the aftermath of war, known as, jus post bellum (Moser and McDonald, 2016a). Jus ad bellum is the initiation of war and it states that war must have a just cause and that war must be taken by a legitimate authority, and in this situation, both of the characteristics mentioned previously are present. Yes, we have a just cause, and yes, the United States is a legitimate authority. However, we need to look at everything about jus ad bellum, “armed conflict is taken as a ‘“last resort’” and all other means have been exhausted.” Let us not forget that “a just war requires a “‘right intention”’ and to not be motivated by aggression” (Moser and McDonald, 2016a). In this situation, the American...

Words: 1040 - Pages: 5

Premium Essay

Just War Theory Essay

...With the discussion of unjust and just war has occurred in connection with whether terror-bombing is a just means to pursue a war, or the do it even mean to initiated one in accord with justice. Just war deontological theory is the relationship between duty and the morality rules of the military action, which will result in the good for the welfare of the people in the village that the war is taken place at. Failing to abide by the general rules that have been setup for the U.S. government will result in immorally behavior. When dealing with deontological, there is no room for subjective feelings, because it will leave room for question and it does not deal with ethics, but it does concentrate on prudence. Jus in Bello theory distinguishes how the military will are may treat the combatants and how we will treat noncombatants on the battlefield. The jus ad bellum doctrine is the standard war between the nation’s issues of what...

Words: 720 - Pages: 3

Premium Essay

Just War

...The Second World War can be considered a just war using the criteria set forth in the “Just War Theory.” The war was properly declared by an act of Congress after an attack by the Empire of Japan on December 7, 1941. The US Constitution gives Congress the responsibility to declare war in Article 1, section 8. Because of the act of aggression by Japan and the proper declaration of war by Congress, World War II meets elements 1 and 2 of the Just War Theory. World War II also had the right intentions. Both Japan and Germany were sweeping through the Pacific and Europe repressing the people they had defeated. Both Axis powers were brutalizing, and in the case of Germany exterminating, certain groups of people. The United States had attempted to stay out of the European conflict, leaving it to regional powers such as Great Britain. Peace did not seem to have a chance because of the ambitions of the Japanese and German powers. As a result, war was the final option left to the Americans. The United States had a reasonable chance for success because they had not yet been involved in the fighting. They were also the industrial and manufacturing base for the British and Soviets; providing them with arms and material to fight the Germans. The United States was also not going to fight alone. They were joining with the Allied powers that had already been fighting for a few years. The Bible tells us “Never pay back evil with more evil. Do things in such a way that everyone can see you...

Words: 305 - Pages: 2

Free Essay

Just War Theory

...Running Head: MHE505 MODULE 1 – CASE ASSIGNMENT Question 1: Global definitions of terrorism are presented in the background reading. Provide a critique of these definitions. What would you propose as a global definition of terrorism? |To Define Terrorism | |Debate over what constitutes a terrorist or a terrorist assault occurs with each mass violent attack. In remarks to the Center for | |International Policy in Washington DC, on November 2001, former Ambassador Keeley (2002) discussed the necessity to define | |terrorism, and illustrated the challenge of constructing a definition that can be applied steadily. (Keeley, 2002) Thirteen years | |later six different U.S. government agencies have differing definition of Terrorism, and there is no consensus on a definition. | | | |Critique of Definitions of Terrorism | |Although the wording used in the within the definitions varies, there are key words each of the agencies emphasize. The U.S. Code | |Of Federal Regulation does not distinguish between a government and sub national group who uses terrorism as a method. United | |States Code Title...

Words: 1455 - Pages: 6

Premium Essay

War Just or Unjust

...Can WAR ever be just? Can there be rules about war so that fair play is possible? Has there ever been a war with a just cause? This has been a debate for ages. It depends on who you are asking if you ask a Christian they will tell you any war is unjust because god would not want you to kill others. He would want you to turn the cheek. Others may say it is just if it’s in defense. In this paper, I will explain why the Vietnam War was just. The United States got involved in the Vietnam War from 1954 -1964 to prevent and contain communism. In Vietnam, an independence movement under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh rose to challenge French rule. The United States helped France by giving financial and military aid. The US had moral and ethical reasons to stand up and face unethical leaders that oppressed other weaker people and to contain the spread of communism. Communism is horrible because the government controls every move you make and you have no say in what happens in your life. Such as no right to vote, no freedom of speech, no right to a fair trial, etc. This is what the United States was trying to protect South Vietnam from. Communists used terrorism, murdered and subversion to destabilize countries. Just this alone was a just cause for the United States to get involved in the Vietnam War. Many feel that this wasn’t a good enough reason for the United States to get involved and was immoral unjust war, or that communism is not that bad. According to Aquinas four things...

Words: 830 - Pages: 4

Free Essay

Is the War on Terror a Just War? Explain, with Reference to Both Jus Ad Bellum and Jus in Bello.

...I will argue that the ‘war on terror’ declared by the Bush administration and so assessed for the US; is not a just war. It fails in the central interrelated criteria of just cause and last resort for jus ad bellum, which I detail first through assessment of the Bush administration’s self-proclaimed just reasoning behind resorting to war against a concept, and the alternatives available to it, I will then detail its failure in the jus in bello criteria of discrimination and proportionality, reasoning through the case of drone warfare. Jus ad bellum I shall firstly focus on the crucial jus ad bellum principle of just cause, holding the only just cause for war to be self-defence . The USA and its allies suffered unjust, unprovoked terror attacks, notably to embassies and battleships, as well as ultimately the 9/11 disaster, and further possessed reputable evidence of other failed attacks. Thus this essay acknowledges that they were under-attack from a powerful and effective enemy, which could be reliably pinpointed as Al Qaeda. These attacks were focused on non-combatants in landmark locations; deliberate targeting for maximum terror spreading effect, which further represented an attack on western freedoms. Hence the assailant satisfied neither jus ad bellum, nor jus in bello, and without immediate and effective action there existed great potential for further unjust attacks. This was the Bush administration’s argument for sufficient reason to declare war in self-defence . However...

Words: 2219 - Pages: 9

Premium Essay

Is Vietnam War Just or Not

...Vietnam War between USA with South Vietnam and North Vietnam with Viet Cong had lasted about 10 years and had many significant consequences. Therefore, it’s one of the most important wars in the recent years and has possessed many resonances so far. It is an unforgettable war for the USA because it has unexpectedly lost the war. The USA has lost the war against a fragile,undeveloped country which is North Vietnam. USA has lost the war against a fragile,undeveloped country which is North Vietnam. There has been a lot of controversies about this war so far. These controversies are concentrated on the moral dimension of the war. In other words, the experts and the analysts are concerned about whether this war is just or not. The Vietnam War can’t be considered as just war when we evaluate it with the aid of the Jus Ad Bellum critters. It doesn’t meet the 6 critters such as just cause, comparative justice, legitimate authority, right intention, probability of success and last resort. First of all, the USA doesn’t have a just cause to declare a war against North Vietnam and Viet Cong. In this war, USA struggles against communism and wants to terminate the so-called dangerous activities of the North Vietnam and Viet Cong founded by Ho Min Cinh in South Vietnam. USA doesn’t correct a suffered wrong here although it regards communism as great public evil. Western countries which adopt liberalism disapprove communism and they think that communism have to be removed. In this war, USA exactly...

Words: 2328 - Pages: 10