By James Levy
The ongoing war in Iraq highlights a profound question of our time- what justifies war? Neither side in the controversial and contested run-up to war in 2003 bothered much to articulate a coherent set of principles that might guide future policy. The debate swirled around Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (which turned out not to exist) and the declaimed “threat” posed by Saddam Hussein. Even today, Condoleezza Rice, then head of the National Security Council, today the Secretary of State, invokes the “threat” from Saddam Hussein as justification for launching the war in 2003, yet she cannot produce a single fact _ a weapon, a delivery system, a captured plan for Iraqi action against the US _ to support such a claim. So justifying war is a tricky business. Nevertheless, the issue of what justifies war remains, and with a conflict with Iran looming, is as important as ever.
Before we can consider what justifies war, we need to define war. War is the use of violence by one government in order to make another government bend to its will. It is not criminal violence committed by gangs or individuals. Traditionally, war is preceded by an ultimatum, breaking of diplomatic relations, a declaration of war, or all three. Unfortunately, the United States has drifted away from these norms, but that is another matter. Suffice to say that the Sierra Club, the NYPD, or I cannot got to war; only sovereign governments are empowered to go to war.
Now that we can spot a war, what is it that can justify the use of deadly force on such a large scale? There are two broad schools of thought addressing the question of justifying war. One school stresses “reasons of state” as critical. In this school of thought, if the government needs something, or feels threatened by someone, it is justified in taking military action. If the Sioux Indians in 1876 have what you want, you send the cavalry out and take it. If the Czechs in 1968 are threatening the stability of the communist system in Eastern Europe, you send in the Red Army’s tanks and set them straight. Such a system of thought is utilitarian and amoral. It justifies action by their practical results: the ends justify the means.
The second school of thought dealing with the justification of war is vaguely referred to as “just war theory.” It can be rooted in either religious doctrines or international law. This school stresses the need for clear, definable acts of aggression as the only legitimate grounds for using military force. If the Germans invade Poland, Poland and her allies can fight back. If Japan bombs Pearl Harbor, then the United States is justified in going to war. “Just war theory” is legalistic. Its purpose is to limit the ability of governments to use war willy-nilly as an instrument of state. War is justified only as a last resort, a means of immediate self-defense.
How are we as a nation to choose between these two conflicting schools of thought? As a democratic society steeped in the tradition of the rule of law, one might say that a natural affinity should exist between the “just war” school and us. However, historically, the United States has often used military force without any dire threat to, or direct attack on, the United States. Aggressive acts against the American Indians, Mexicans, Spanish, Granadans, Panamanians, and Iraqis have all been undertaken well shy of the criteria usually associated with fighting a “just war.” A nod has been made in each case to some legal or moral justification, but none holds up well under scrutiny. All these military actions were undertaken for “reasons of state.” The “just war” case for 1941 is undeniable, while those for 1812 and 1917 are ambiguous.
In the last analysis, the moral compass of the individual is the only guide we have. Values are personal and not easily forced into universal pigeonholes. A consensus about what justifies war that commands a supermajority (like the widespread beliefs that murder and rape are wrong) is not likely to emerge any time soon. But we do have a viable course of future action. Each citizen must come to some conclusion about how he or she feels on this issue. Then, in our democratic process, we must demand that the opinion of the majority be respected. The Bush Administration told us that they “knew better” than us in 2003. They did not. The government must be made to obey the will of the people, not its own ideological agenda. In addition, the media have a vital role to play. They must make sure that the issues are not obfuscated and the people have a real choice. They must challenge and expose the actions of government. The media has to be clear about what kind of justification we are being asked to support: a war based on “reasons of state,” or a war grounded in “just war” theory. Then it is up to the people and their representatives in Congress to make the momentous choice for war.
James Levy is an Assistant Professor and Teaching Fellow at the School for University Studies, Hofstra University. You may e-mail him at [email protected]