The Just War theory provides an ethical framework for judging the moral justification of war, specifically having to do with the conditions under which war can be deemed both unavoidable and ethical.
War has always been the primary sign of “the depravity of man,” to use words from a past era. Today we would describe war as a sign of the worst instincts of human nature and the most violent by-product of human conflict. Originally war was as savage as any side chose to make it, as violent as any side wanted it to be .
To bring a measure of rationalism and ethics to the conduct of war, St. Augustine of the 4th century, a Bishop of the Church in North Africa, offered various thoughts on the subject that were later organized, expanded, and refined by St. Francis of Assisi in the 13th century.
Augustine wrote that a war deemed ethical or just must meet certain criteria, including: (1) Waged by a legitimate authority; (2) based on a just cause for right intentions; (3) having the ultimate goal of establishing peace.
In his major work, Summa Theologica, St. Francis offered a more comprehensive basis for a just war that was similar to, but more expansive of what Augustine said: (1) It must be conducted by a rightful sovereign; (2) must be for a just cause such as a response to being attacked; (3) that the intention of the war is to promote good; (4) that war be a last resort; (5) that violence be proportional to the threat; (6) that the killing of innocents be avoided; (7) that the ultimate goal is peace.
In concise terms, a just war is one that is unavoidable, the actions of which must be limited to what is necessary, and whose goal is the achievement of a just peace that goes beyond mere victory.
The entire concept of a just war was an argument for rationality and the moral principles of right and wrong to be applied to the conduct of war among nations in an effort to save humanity from barbarism.
In the Uniform Code of Military Justice, there is a comprehensive guide of the Military Rules of Engagement that reflects our government’s acknowledgment that it agrees with the intentions and principles of the Just War theory.
It is a clear and unambiguous statement that legal and moral rules apply to a nation’s conduct even in time of war. Such a code of military justice reflects our nation’s conscious decision to position ourselves in the historical context of individuals and nations that have sought to maintain a sense of decorum and right and wrong during those times of war when morality and legality can be easily ignored.
Just war thinking and our nation’s corresponding uniform code of military justice reflect the human need to live decently, morally, righteously, even in times of war. To disregard that need by ignoring ethics and morality is to choose savagery over civility, wrong over right.
This is the historical context for the news stories this week about our government blowing up small boats in the Caribbean our leaders claim are carrying drugs, and the report that two people surviving a strike against one such boat were blown out of the water while clinging the debris.
In the context of the Just War theory, two major questions stand out for me: (1) Was any of this legal? (2) Was any of it moral?
The current controversy in the news regarding to the U.S. attacks on the boats in the Caribbean should be seen within the context of this history of bringing legal and moral principles to bear when evaluating a solider’s conduct in war.
The sad part is that at the moment America is being lead by a President and administration with an already significant history of acting outside the confines of the laws of our nation and the moral standards of conduct to which we hold ourselves as a people.
But that is the point, isn’t it? Not only has the Trump presidency been riddled with actions that demonstrate no concern for what is legal or moral, but reflect Trump’s desire to replace law and morality with a system of arbitrary decision-making controlled by himself. If he says it is right, then it is right.
Of course, that he would think and function this way was entirely predictable as much as it was inevitable, given who Trump is. He believes he alone decides what is to be done and no one has the right to question or hold him accountable for his actions.
So we find ourselves with a president who wants to wage war without concern for the constitutional mandate that only the Congress has the power to declare war, and, further, to use violence in whatever way he chooses.
This is the core reason Trump poses the danger he does to the future of our country. He is seeking to corrupt the legal and moral standards of who we are as a people so that we think and speak and act like he does.
God forbid that such a thing should ever happen, but that is certainly his goal and we will see what progress he has made in turning us into a people like himself as the story of the conduct of our military in Trump’s war in the Caribbean unfolds.
Should the legal and moral principles of military engagement we have defined for ourselves be applied to what Trump is doing in the Caribbean, we will know we are still the nation we have sought to be since our founding.
If that does not happen, then we will know how far we have fallen from being the moral people and civilized society we once were.
linnposts.com 