Just War Requirements 1. A Last Resort - after all peaceful methods fail 2. A Just Cause - to correct a grave, immediate, ongoing evil 3. Valid Authority - must arise from a consistent policy or principle 4. Probable Success - men can't be sent to die hopelessly 5. Proportionality - force must be proportionate and no more than necessary 6. Exit Strategy - it must be fought fairly and end as quickly as possible Applied to the American War in Vietnam 2. A just cause. The official start of the war was Aug 7th 1964. If you look up gulf of Tonkin USS Maddox bullet, you can see the photograph that was shown to Congress, allegedly a 14.5mm bullet became embedded in sheet steel of the USS Maddox in an 'unprovoked attack', and retribution was required. 5. Proportionality - did one bullet, no deaths and no significant damage justify a war that killed 3 million Vietnamese? 1. Last Resort? European allies of the US urged seeking a diplomatic solution but: the National Security Council issued an "action memorandum" calling for increased military aid to South Vietnam and asserted that Vietnam was a "test case" of American global leadership, claiming that a Communist victory in South Vietnam would so damage American prestige that none of America's allies would believe in American promises if South Vietnam was "lost".[23] By presenting the Vietnam war in these stark terms with the melodramatic claim that the United States would cease to be a world power if South Vietnam was "lost", the "action memorandum" virtually guaranteed American intervention.
There was a lot more to it than that. For example, France demanded we help them keep their colony, or else they would ally with the Soviet Union in exchange for the Soviet Union helping them keep their colony. ...We should've chosen option B. We didn't.
A bit more Just War Theory applied to the American war in Vietnam: 4. Probable success and 6. Exit strategy: I can't recall which US General it was, but the point made was that the border of Vietnam was so long and without physical barriers for so much of it, that final victory could be elusive - which turned out to be the exact reason the US did not win. And that argument was similar to one made by British Field Marshall Montgomery in his warning not to fight a land war in Asia of the lack of one single clear decisive objective. I guess if there isn't an exit criteria, then success is going to also be difficult to achieve. The best option might be to make a good show of winning by getting on a big US aircraft carrier and declaring victory under a big 'Mission Accomplished' banner. That will probably do the job.
France was going down in flames in Vietnam. Our policy was not based on French demands in any way I've ever heard of. We took over that war for our own purposes. And, those purposes did not justify what we did.
What a great topic! We've made a number of mistakes pointed out by just war theory. Our decisions in Afghanistan and Iraq are examples. In fact, what the HELL are we doing today in promoting and enabling Israel's humanitarian atrocity against the nation of Palestine?
One consistent theme is the stronger country - the US in Vietnam, US vs Taliban in Afghanistan, US in Iraq after we had ensured there were no WMD, US in Lebanon, US/NATO attack on Libya, US in Syria, and so on, the stronger country initiates the war in either an open or a clandestine way, expecting victory. So it could be argued that Just War requirement 4, of probable victory had been met in each case, but not necessarily: Vietnam: total air superiority existed but dense foliage negated a lot of that advantage, also the US was seen as a direct replacement of French colonization. US companies did get the oil drilling rights in the shallow sea south of Vietnam, so I would say it was a victory. Afghanistan: After two months the Taliban offered to surrender and to hand over bin Laden, but Rumsfeld refused the surrender. Maybe someone has more details on this. The victory was probable until we refused the surrender and then sent a lot of the forces to Iraq to be ready for war there.
Failure of the US in a time of almost unchallenged military supremacy to any way follow Just War requirements, is an indication of how little effect the Christian, or other Abrahamic faith, has since the death of JFK, had our government. Separation of church and state should not be taken to mean separation of morality and state. The US is now (2023) ruled by a group who deny any absolute morality, accept men in women's sports and shower rooms, and claim neither nature nor religion should have any bearing on human life. Both the religious and the very principled leading atheists such as Bertrand Russell, or 'The Four Horsemen' - Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris, have clear moral guidelines. The a fore mentioned atheists are bastions of morality compared with most of those in the self-satisfied over-confident overly intellectual established churches. Although science may not be an obvious source for ethics, it does seem to provide some pointers as to which choices would be clearly immoral. And Just war theory should be held up as a measuring stick to our out-of-control government. Part of me is pleased the Biden Administration is such a disaster because it means U.S. hegemony is over and now maybe the continuous string of wars will also end. Personally I find it a relief because I was drafted for the Vietnam War, and back then only narrowly missed serving.
One has to justify war based on ALL the criteria, not just one. Frankly, I think requirement 4 is the least meaningful, as countries who go to war always believe they will prevail in a timely manner. In fact, their analysis of likelihood of success is usually warped by patriotism and self pride. When people suggested that the war in Afg might not go well, they were thoroughly berated as anti-American. The very IDEA that we wouldn't conquer was not something to be considered.
This is total partisan crap. We are as strong internationally as we have ever been. And, we're strong at home, too. No recent president has pushed for having a draft or embarking on new military adventurism.
That strikes me as non sequitur. The Just War Doctrine was not developed by or for the United States and its government, and to my knowledge our government has never adopted it as official policy. As for the degree the Abrahamic and Christian faiths have influenced our government, I think it's safe to say that this has depended entirely on the views of the various presidents and their administrations. I'm curious how you came to the death of JFK as some point where the effect "the Christian, or other Abrahamic faith" had on our government changed. Were JFK's policies guided by "the Christian, or other Abrahamic faith"? I'm not seeing how they were, nor am I seeing where they had an enormous effect on his immediate predecessors and the vast majority of presidents who preceded them. Heck, George Washington was not a religious man, and Thomas Jefferson may have been a closet atheist masquerading as a Deist. The state has no morality. Morality is for human beings, and I would agree that it should be for the people who control/guide the state. I would agree with you on the religion part, but I'm not sure the High Priests of the Climate Cult believe Nature (meaning the environment) should have no bearing on human life. Obviously, they are using Nature as an excuse to control people's lives. A dubious (and unsubstantiated) claim, at best. What exactly are these "self-satisfied over-confident overly intellectual established churches"? Would it include what Jean-François Revel referred to as the Cult of Fiasco, which is currently operating in the White House? Such as? Perhaps. That or our out-of-control government could start following the Constitution. Well, yes, the Biden Administration is a complete disaster, but one would think that the end of the Cold War would give us a reason to reconsider our position and role in the world. The bipolar power dynamics of the mid to late 20th Century are over. Shouldn't we be contemplating and preparing for our place within the multi-polar world of the 21st Century? I think we'll find there's a lot of blood and treasure to be saved if we do.
Let's remember that we were instrumental in the creation of the United Nations. It's principles are a statement of how nations need to behave, with the US as a primary contributor as well as a primary enforcer. Part of its remit has to be an understanding of what is and is not legitimate when it comes to war. Besides Just War Doctrine, we have what is written in the UN charter itself, the Geneva conventions and its enforcement through the UNSC, etc. The fact that the US pretty much rejects Just War Doctrine is NOT an asset. It's gotten us into situations where our position is untenable, where results are worthless to us and others, and thus where huge numbers of humans on all sides get slaughtered. The USA would be better off were we to more strongly embrace Just War Doctrine when considering our actions and when judging the actions of others. I would suggest it is even more important for the USA, as there is little to oppose actions we choose to take. When we make ourselves the law, we take on a heavy responsibility that is proven to be difficult to live up to.
In our atheist post modern relativism there are no absolute standards to judge anything by. So how can we measure the present behavior and past behaviors of different countries and politicians? We can't. That's why so many people here think they can understand Pres. Putin by Joe Stalin, by any absolute moral measures the two are diametrically opposite, but if all morality is relative, then who knows? I've even come across an argument that the Russian Federation is evil because it is atheist. Pres. Putin is a Christian, Joey Biden is evil. It really is that simple, but difficult to accept that just maybe this time we really aren't the 'good guys'. Our weapons makers are getting rich, everyone else is suffering. We can accept that we weren't being wise in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Kosovo, or Lebanon but just can't accept that maybe right now we are doing something wrong.
Just War Theory is one example showing we CAN evaluate that actions taken by different countries. This idea that atheism damages that capability is total BS. The history of religious wars demonstrates that CLEARLY. While the New Testament can't be claimed to justify ANY armed conflict, the Old Testament is RIFE with wars carried out for the expressed purpose of gain. Beyond that, there are numerous religions. Deciding that religion must play a role does not clarify any decision, as conflicts can be fundamentally grounded in religious objectives. Plus, if Just War Theory doesn't work for all, then it is barely more than self gratification. Of course, the application of such restraint on our OWN actions is obviously more difficult (and more important) than simply judging others. So, today we happily support, defend and contribute to the Israeli war of ethnic cleansing against Palestine, not only supplying arms, but carefully defending Israel from evaluations by the UN or any of its bodies - even though Palestine has every right to invoke its protection. How does that comport with Just War Theory? How does the involvement of our majority national religion and its values contribute meaningful leadership in this atrocity?
Predictably I am having problems with mainstream christian religions, they seem to be just as lost as the mainstream media and possibly for the same reason, namely who their sponsors are. In England in 1915 (it seems like just yesterday) the (Episcopal) Lord Bishop of London addressed the soldiers departing for WW1, telling them they were 'fighting for Christ' and 'fighting against the Anti Christ' and that every German killed benefited mankind. As the established church in England it is not surprising the Episcopal (Anglican section) church supported the government rather than Jesus. It also means I will never belong to it. Soon after the war both the Germans and the English discovered they had been told by their respective churches that they were in the right and were fighting the good fight for god. Subsequently church attendance as a percentage of the population halved in England every generation, and something similar has happened in Germany. It wouldn't be so bad if it was Protestants fighting Catholics, or as in Ukraine Catholics killing Russian Orthodox, but the religions of England and Germany were very similar - mainly Lutheran and partly Catholic. It will be interesting to see what I find out tomorrow (Sunday).
Attempting to attribute either of the world wars to religious causes can not be justified. In Japan, the conduct of their war effort was certainly controlled by their god, who happened to be alive on Earth - a devastating fact. But, there were expansionist motivations other than religion.
In light of its irrelevance to anything I posted I'm wondering why myself or anyone else need to remember that we were instrumental in creating an international body that has utterly failed to execute its primary mission - preventing war. Perhaps, you and everyone else should remember what Winston Churchill said in 1946 shortly after the founding of the United Nations: ...A world organization has already been erected for the prime purpose of preventing war....We must make sure that its work is fruitful, that it is a reality and not a sham, that it is a force for action, and not merely a frothing of words, that it is a true temple of peace in which the shields of many nations can some day be hung up, and not merely a cockpit in a Tower of Babel. Before we cast away the solid assurances of national armaments for self-preservation we must be certain that our temple is built, not upon shifting sands or quagmires, but upon a rock... Not only has the UN failed to prevent war, it has failed to prevent the commission of genocide and state-orchestrated democide around the world, and failed to enforce its human rights instruments, most notably the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). While the UN is effectively an authority on nothing, you did get one thing right - we are the "primary enforcer" - and as I mentioned in my post, it's past time for the U.S. to reconsider the role it assumed during the bipolar power dynamics of the Post WWII era and formulate a new one that reflects and is consistent with the multi-polar power dynamics of the 21st Century. There is no longer any need for us to continue expending the vast amounts of blood and treasure we have spent playing the world's policeman for the past 78 years. Times change, and we all must change with them. We're perfectly capable of determining what is and is not legitimate grounds for war - we don't need a compromised and ineffectual international organization to determine that for us. What I will concede is that the Geneva Conventions have been useful, but in many of the wars we are fighting today we are not dealing with states and entities that observe the laws of war, so its usefulness has been limited. Oh, so the U.S. should determine policy based on the doctrines established by Medieval theologians such as Thomas Aquinas? Pardon me for saying this, but I find that peculiar and inconsistent coming from such a strident supporter of the separation of Church and State as yourself. I think we would be better off abiding by our Constitution and the limitations it places on our government's ability to send its citizens abroad to fight and die in wars, and looking to our own ethics and interests when considering our actions. For far too long we have allowed the interests of other people, nations and international organizations to overrule our own. Our government has the American people and our Constitution to dictate the actions it can take. Perhaps, it's time We the People assumed that responsibility and reminded everyone in Washington who serves who in this country.
How about the religious denominations in the countries you mentioned? 1) Ukrainians are a predominantly Eastern Orthodox people who adhere to the Orthodox Church of Ukraine, not the Roman Catholic Church. 2) In England, a majority of the people are Anglican and in Germany you have a mixture of Catholics and Protestants, i.e., Lutherans, Reformed/Calvinist, etc.. So, what did you find out today? You found out that it's not Catholics killing Russian Orthodox in Ukraine - it's Russian Orthodox killing Ukrainian Orthodox.
Please state your evidence that the UN has not reduced the number of wars we've seen. The UN got it right on Iraq. WE got it wrong. Pretending that WE are the world's judge, jury and executioner is absolutely NOT acceptable. Off topic. Again, we are not the rulers of the world. Pretending that our constitution is rightly enforceable on other nations is WAY beyond ludicrous. Besides, we recognize other states as being legal sovereign entities.
Please prove that there have been no wars since the UN's creation. Please prove that it has resolved the first two conflicts it was tasked with resolving. And while you're at it, prove that it has eliminated genocide, democide and human rights violations around the world since its inception. I'm not a mind reader, Will. What is "it", exactly? Strawman - I never said we were, nor have I advocated that here or elsewhere. You, on the other hand, have claimed that we are the world's executioner - the UN's enforcer - did you not? I certainly don't subscribe to that theory... No, it's not. I suggest you read who and where the Just War doctrine came from Strawman - I never said we were. I said our people and Constitution have the power to limit our government's ability to wage war and that we should not let the ethics and interests of other people and nations dictate our policies. Strawman - no one is pretending the U.S. Constitution can be imposed on other nations. It was designed to secure our individual rights and limit the powers of the United States government, and one of the powers it limits is the power to wage war. However, as is the problem with so many other things, our government routinely violates the Constitution and ignores the limitations that are placed on it...
This is absurd. There is no suggestion by anyone that the UN has ended all war. The USA is clearly a major influence in what the UN does. Those who worry that we are ceding control to the UN just aren't looking. In fact, the UN failed to stop the USA from the war in Iraq - a major disaster for America. The UN certainly tried. Are you supportive of "Just War" doctrine or not? This is an area where there has been broad participation. Such ideas are part of the UN Charter. There are noted examples of the US making mistakes in their decisions to go to war. Our founding documents are a statement of what we stand for. When we fail to support those principles in how we address conflict, it is glaring to other countries. We lost so much credibility in Egypt that the post revolution population rejected many American ideas of governance on the grounds that they LOOKED AMERICAN. You can state that we don't have to walk what we talk. But, we don't do that for free.
