Listen to the article
As the merchants of death increasingly push the world towards an apocalyptic atmosphere, Hezbollah insists on contributing to the building of catastrophe. Let’s avoid being swept away by emotional slogans and remember the lucid words of American philosopher Michael Walzer: “First, oppression is transformed into an excuse for terrorism, and then terrorism is transformed into an excuse for oppression.” It would be appropriate to recall some principles about war that have been fervently defended by great thinkers throughout the centuries.
A Long History
Numerous Western thinkers have sought to evaluate the justice (or injustice) of particular wars. Although Saint Augustine is considered the father of this tradition, Cicero can be seen as a precursor. Cicero forms the main link between Greek thought and the Latin Fathers and is extensively cited in the Middle Ages. In his work De officiis (44 BC), he asserts that there is a law of war and that faith must be observed even in the face of an enemy.
The concept was refined in the Middle Ages, mainly by Christian thinkers. Saint Augustine, a philosopher of admirable lucidity, posited in The City of God (426) that eternal peace could not govern this fallen world and that war must be accepted as an element we can never rid ourselves of. But not all wars are equal: Augustine certainly does not advocate a war of all against all, or sending soldiers to die in order to conquer other territories. Some wars are legitimate, and according to Augustine and other thinkers of the just war, there are conditions that must be met to judge a war as just.
After Augustine, the most influential thinker in the tradition of just war is none other than Saint Thomas Aquinas. Influenced by the author of The City of God, Saint Thomas Aquinas stated in Summa Theologica, his masterpiece published in 1485 (two centuries after his death), that war is not always a sin provided it follows certain criteria, divided into two groups: the conditions that must be met to justify entering a war (“jus ad bellum”), and the rules governing conduct during the war (“jus in bello”). Let’s see what this entails.
What, Then, Is a Just War?
The eminent Swiss Catholic theologian Charles Journet indicated that the criteria for a just war are so strict that if they were seriously applied, the number of just wars in history could be counted on one hand. First, the decision must come from a legitimate authority. Secondly, the war must be a response to aggression. Thirdly, the intentions behind the war must be good. Fourthly, the war must be a measure of last resort, i.e. it should be initiated only when all other peaceful options have failed. Fifthly, there must be a reasonable probability of success.
And that’s not all: after all, the rules of good conduct must be defined. This means that, whenever possible, harm to noncombatants must be avoided, violence must be proportional and excesses avoided, and torture of prisoners of war must be abstained from.
A Tragic Irony
All these ideas are impressive, especially when we realize that they were developed in the Middle Ages. But do they help avoid conflict? According to philosopher Laurie Calhoun, a researcher at the Independent Institute and author of several books and academic articles, it’s rather the opposite. The theory of just war is, most of the time, used to justify going to war and not to avoid combat. It can even be said that it is the best thing that can fall into the hands of belligerent leaders since it gives them a blank check to wage wars, as well as the philosophical means to justify their aggression. Moreover, figures such as Adolf Hitler, Saddam Hussein, George W. Bush or Osama Bin Laden implicitly used the theory of just war to rationalize their monstrous acts; after all, soldiers will not risk their lives for nothing, they must be coaxed with beautiful words and romanticized ideals. Why not recognize that the theory of just war is nothing but a rhetorical gadget useful for warlords?
Furthermore, it is impossible to know the intentions of leaders and to determine if they are good. François de La Rochefoucauld was right when he wrote that the clemency of princes is often just a policy to gain the affection of the people. Alas, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And can we seriously ask belligerents to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants when bombs have replaced the swords and spears of yesteryear?
“It is not by war and victory, but only by labor that a nation can create the conditions necessary for the well-being of its members,” wrote Ludwig von Mises, a great liberal economist of the Austrian school. War is costly for the conquered peoples as well as for the conquerors. In the end, the maxim of the Prussian general Carl von Clausewitz is unavoidable: war is nothing but the continuation of politics by other means. And what is the beginning of peace, if not the limitation of war?