Q1. According to the definition of Just War Theory, would Winston Smith have met the criteria for a just war against the Party?

Q2. What would be the consequences if a society took Jefferson’s view seriously?

Q3. Hsia argues that conditions in the United States could lead to a state of permanent war. How does this compare to Oceania and the concept of War is Peace?

Political Violence

Just War Theory

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy <

1. Just cause. This is clearly the most important rule; it sets the tone for everything which follows. A state may launch a war only for the right reason. The just causes most frequently mentioned include: self-defence from external attack; the defence of others from such; the protection of innocents from brutal, aggressive regimes; and punishment for a grievous wrongdoing which remains uncorrected. Vitoria suggested that all the just causes be subsumed under the one category of “a wrong received.” Walzer, and most modern just war theorists, speak of the one just cause for resorting to war being the resistance of aggression. Aggression is the use of armed force in violation of someone else's basic rights.

2. Right intention. A state must intend to fight the war only for the sake of its just cause. Having the right reason for launching a war is not enough: the actual motivation behind the resort to war must also be morally appropriate. Ulterior motives, such as a power or land grab, or irrational motives, such as revenge or ethnic hatred, are ruled out. The only right intention allowed is to see the just cause for resorting to war secured and consolidated. If another intention crowds in, moral corruption sets in. International law does not include this rule, probably because of the evidentiary difficulties involved in determining a state's intent.

3. Proper authority and public declaration. A state may go to war only if the decision has been made by the appropriate authorities, according to the proper process, and made public, notably to its own citizens and to the enemy state(s). The “appropriate authority” is usually specified in that country's constitution. States failing the requirements of minimal justice lack the legitimacy to go to war.

4. Last Resort. A state may resort to war only if it has exhausted all plausible, peaceful alternatives to resolving the conflict in question, in particular diplomatic negotiation. One wants to make sure something as momentous and serious as war is declared only when it seems the last practical and reasonable shot at effectively resisting aggression.

5. Probability of Success. A state may not resort to war if it can foresee that doing so will have no measurable impact on the situation. The aim here is to block mass violence which is going to be futile. International law does not include this requirement, as it is seen as biased against small, weaker states.

6. Proportionality. A state must, prior to initiating a war, weigh the universal goods expected to result from it, such as securing the just cause, against the universal evils expected to result, notably casualties. Only if the benefits are proportional to, or “worth”, the costs may the war action proceed. (The universal must be stressed, since often in war states only tally their own expected benefits and costs, radically discounting those accruing to the enemy and to any ---innocent third parties.)

------

“God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”

—Thomas Jefferson, 1787

------

Unexamined Civil-Military Relations

By Tim Hsia

This is the first in what will be a regular series of moderated forums on “At War” by Timothy Hsia, a U.S. Army active duty infantry captain. Captain Hsia will pick topics on the military, including strategy, combat and the stress families face during long and regular deployments, and ask soldiers, their families and anyone else to submit comments. We hope to provoke a lively — and civil — debate.

Captain Hsia is not posting here on behalf of the American military or government, but rather as a young soldier with an interest in ideas and writing. His posts will aim more at outlining the terms of debate, at stirring conversation, rather than taking sides. Since he is on active duty, he will avoid partisanship — though readers are welcome to be less neutral.

After graduating West Point in 2004, Captain Hsia served with 1st Brigade, 25th Infantry Division (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) at Ft. Lewis, Washington. His last assignment was with 3rd Squadron, 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment based out of Vilseck, Germany. He currently assists with training Reserve Soldiers prior to their deployments.

Before 9/11 conventional wisdom said that the United States no longer had the stomach for prolonged wars.

However, the length and nature of today’s wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem to suggest that very few Americans are sitting at the dinner table arguing over these protracted conflicts. Moreover, Americans seem to have a certain nonchalance and obliviousness concerning its future military requirements in Iraq, Afghanistan, and globally.

In the U.S., it often seems only one war results in introspection and debate, and that is the Vietnam War. Not surprisingly, the Vietnam War was the last war which really affected every American regardless of political or socio-economic status. In the 2004 Presidential race the Vietnam War, and the debate over Swift-boating and allegations about one’s war record seemed to play a larger role in the election then either of the wars which the United States was currently engaged in.

Did the end of the draft, and the beginning of an all volunteer force dissolve society’s relationship with the military? What is the status of civil-military relations today? Is watching the movie the Hurt Locker, a recent movie about Army explosive ordnance soldiers, as close as Americans can get to feeling like a nation at war?

At West Point one of the most spirited debates I witnessed as a cadet revolved around a discussion concerning civil-military relations. The class was divided into three camps, one group which argued that the military was a microcosm of American society, a small circle within a larger circle. Another group claimed that the military shared some beliefs with society, but also had values which were incompatible, and hence the relationship was better represented by two circles which overlapped in some areas. A third group of cadets disputed both groups, and contended that the American military and society were really two distinct circles sharing only one point in common, a commitment to the Constitution.

The discussion and questions raised in that class have increasing relevance as the duration of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have lasted longer than the combined time which the United States was engaged in fighting during World War I, World War II, and the Korean War.

The questions raised should not be confused with shouldering burdens, as the recession’s impact has been felt far and widespread amongst many Americans who are struggling to put food on the table and find jobs.

Moreover, the new G.I. Bill, the first lady’s outspoken commitment to military families, and the overall support by Americans for the troops has been incredible. But can Americans honestly say this country is at war, when less than one percent of the country wages war? Perhaps the blanket support for troops is merely a coping mechanism for Americans in order to wash away any psychological discomfort for not feeling more involved in the nation’s supposed wars.

If this is the case, then the country could be entering an era of persistent conflict, not because of the threats the U.S. faces, but rather because society has become inoculated to the concept of the ever-present war. Are Americans less averse to war as long as it means not me or my family?

But Americans cannot feel guilty for not feeling at war when the nation has not even officially declared war. Or perhaps this undeclared state of war is just an extension of society’s general disconnect with the military, or awkwardness with being at war but not feeling at war? Worse yet, do we not declare war so we can conveniently support wars we are winning, while also allowing us the flexibility to move out of conflicts which are difficult and necessary but do not receive favorable press?

Since leaving that class that day, my classmates and I have debated these questions in our heads for years. There seems to be no clear-cut answer, and sometimes the answers seem too hard to confront. But from the class, I now realize why the instructor always stressed that it was important to leave the ego in the hallways. Because presuming one had the answers and not listening to others, was a clear sign of moral and intellectual laziness.

Moreover, I now realize how my instructor felt when he started raising his numerous pointed questions to the classroom. He had all the questions, but he also had none of the answers.

The views expressed in this blog are those of the author, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.