Rethinking the 'Just War,' Part 2

 hippiechick wrote: 
we had a chance to do that on nov 6th

the two wings of the war party continue to rule

peace

Rethinking the ‘Just War,’ Part 1
By JEFF MCMAHAN / The Stone

Can war be justified? Is there such a thing as morally proper conduct in war?

(...) The Stone is featuring recent work by Jeff McMahan, a philosopher and professor at Rutgers University, on “just war theory” — a set of ethical principles pertaining to violent conflict, whose origins can be traced back to Augustine, that still influence the politics and morality of war today. The work will be published in two parts on consecutive days — the first dealing with the background and history of the traditional just war theory, and second consisting of the author’s critique of that theory.

 RichardPrins wrote: 
Thank you for posting this. If I had done it, I would have gotten piled on like the guy with the football. 

We must just stop fighting wars. Young people must stop enlisting. No one wants war but the bankers, the politicians, and the war machine manufacturers.  

There is no reason for us to have a base in almost every single country in the world. Really, Germany??? 

For Veterans Day, the best thing we could do is demand to stop the wars. 

Paul Atwood: Veterans’ Day 2012: a Meditation

Every November 11 the nation pretends to observe Veterans’ Day. This charade parallels the ubiquitous yellow bumper stickers that avow “We Support Our Troops.” Yes, indeed, all the way to the cemeteries, and amputee and paraplegic wards, as well as to lifelong psychic and spiritual distress! If we really were concerned not to impose such curses on our fellow citizens, and horror on many civilians, we wouldn’t allow wars to be waged in the name of lies. While a clear majority wants the troops home, polls declare, this has not resulted in any public demonstration of demand to achieve this result, so the death toll creeps up inexorably every week, while almost nothing is said of the maimed, though the indifference to the toll on Muslim civilians taken by our drones in many countries appears to indicate approval of high tech murder if that might keep our own casualties lower.

Consider the outraged coverage of the shooting of the young Pakistani teen who advocated education for girls. Our bombs and now drones have been shredding and torching children for generations. No problem with that! There is no equivalent today of the chant of yore “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today.” Many 19 year olds in uniform at that time felt this mantra should have taken them into account too. (...)

Greenwald: Petraeus scandal is reported with compelled veneration of all things military
The reverence for the former CIA Director is part of a wider religious-like worship of the national security state.

(...) First, military worship is the central religion of America's political and media culture. The military is by far the most respected and beloved institution among the US population - a dangerous fact in any democracy - and, even assuming they wanted to (which they don't), our brave denizens of establishment journalism are petrified of running afoul of that kind of popular sentiment.

Recall the intense controversy that erupted last Memorial Day when MSNBC's Chris Hayes gently pondered whether all soldiers should be considered "heroes". His own network, NBC, quickly assembled a panel on the Today Show to unanimously denounce him in the harshest and most personal terms ("I hope that he doesn't get more viewers as a result of this...this guy is like a – if you've seen him...he looks like a weenie" - "Could you be more inappropriate on Memorial Day?"), and Hayes then subjected himself to the predictable ritual of public apology (though he notably did not retract the substance of his remarks).

Hayes was forced (either overtly or by the rising pressure) to apologize because his comments were blasphemous: of America's true religion. At virtually every major sporting event, some uber-patriotic display of military might is featured as the crowd chants and swoons. It's perfectly reasonable not to hold members of the military responsible for the acts of aggression ordered by US politicians, but that hardly means that the other extreme - compelled reverence - is justifiable either.

Yet US journalists - whose ostensible role is to be adversarial to powerful and secretive political institutions (which includes, first and foremost, the National Security State) - are the most pious high priests of this national religion. John Parker, former military reporter and fellow of the University of Maryland Knight Center for Specialized Journalism-Military Reporting, wrote an extraordinarily good letter back in 2010 regarding why leading Pentagon reporters were so angry at WikiLeaks for revealing government secrets: because they identify with the military to the point of uncritical adoration:

"The career trend of too many Pentagon journalists typically arrives at the same vanishing point: Over time they are co-opted by a combination of awe - interacting so closely with the most powerfully romanticized force of violence in the history of humanity - and the admirable and seductive allure of the sharp, amazingly focused demeanor of highly trained military minds. Top military officers have their s*** together and it's personally humbling for reporters who've never served to witness that kind of impeccable competence. These unspoken factors, not to mention the inner pull of reporters' innate patriotism, have lured otherwise smart journalists to abandon – justifiably in their minds – their professional obligation to treat all sources equally and skeptically. . . .

"Pentagon journalists and informed members of the public would benefit from watching 'The Selling of the Pentagon', a 1971 documentary. It details how, in the height of the Vietnam War, the Pentagon sophisticatedly used taxpayer money against taxpayers in an effort to sway their opinions toward the Pentagon's desires for unlimited war. Forty years later, the techniques of shaping public opinion via media has evolved exponentially. It has reached the point where flipping major journalists is a matter of painting in their personal numbers."

(...)

Holy cow...

Stephen M. Walt: Do Americans love the military too much?

With so much attention riveted on Election Day, some important contributions to our discourse are bound to get less attention than they deserve. Case in point: yesterday's NYT op-ed by Aaron O'Connell on the "permanent militarization of America." It's an excellent piece, and I just hope his arguments don't fall into the memory hole while we're all breathlessly awaiting the outcome in Ohio, Florida, Virginia, or wherever.

Greenwald: Who is the worst civil liberties president in US history?
Where do the abuses of the last decade from Bush and Obama rank when compared to prior assaults in the name of war?

The following interesting question arose yesterday from what at first appeared to be some petty Twitter bickering: who was the worst president for civil liberties in US history? That question is a difficult one to answer because it is so reliant upon which of many valid standards of measurement one chooses; it depends at least as much on the specific rights which one understands the phrase "civil liberties" to encompass. That makes the question irresolvable in any definitive way, but its examination is nonetheless valuable for the light it sheds on current political disputes. (...)

Hidden away somewhere within the labyrinth of the Pentagon there must be a top secret euphemism department engaged in the invention of the Orwellian surrogate words that have crept surreptitiously into the American English vocabulary and from there translated into many other languages. In my mind I see a unit of studiously serious executives, coffee mugs in their hands and their neckties awry, devising senseless terms for terrible things and used unthinkingly by people today from New York to California, from Maine to Texas. The goal of my imaginary secret unit is to render ugly terms meaningless or to transform them into their opposite. To quote the perceptive Scottish writer, Candia McWilliam, “plain words are always under threat.” There are words that don’t say what they mean and there are words that say what they don’t mean. (...)

Today, though generally unknown among the public, the relatively new term, “lily pad”, is making its way forward to describe not that beautiful manifestation of nature but the new version of America’s over 1000 military bases and garrisons spreading across some 150 countries of planet Earth. (...)

Commentary: How American Exceptionalism Dooms U.S. Foreign Policy | The National Interest

(...) Amnesia: The past is mostly absent in American foreign-policy thinking, certainly in general public awareness. History begins today, particularly when the countries are weak, authoritarian or evil. They are bad and deserve to be changed, even by force, whatever their history. Indeed, willful blindness reigns once the U.S. government decides to go to war.

Any region will do, but today the Middle East is our biggest example of forgetfulness. It affects almost every country of that region, even as these other nations are intensely preoccupied with history in explaining their poor states.

Our previous interventions—overt and covert—are not a cause for policy uncertainty or caution because we are seeking virtuous ends or our security is in danger. But our definition of security, despite all moral reassurances, is heavily influenced by domestic politics.

Sometimes this amnesia occurs within the same decade. A recent example is the public resurgence of the neoconservatives intellectually responsible for the most destructive decade in U.S. foreign policy in our lifetime. (...)

(...) Rules-Based Foreign Policy: The United States constantly reminds many countries, particularly China, that if they want to be part of the international community they must play by the rules. These are norms that we have largely formulated and instituted. Indeed, they are usually good rules.

Still, only one country—the United States—can be exempt from the rules because of its virtue. We insist on all sorts of exceptions to economic rules in order to satisfy our domestic politics, but it is simply unthinkable, for example, for the Koreans to do the same; until they follow the rules, we won’t play.

China, the greatest rule breaker in the U.S. rule book, has not invaded any country since 1978, and then it was for three weeks. It is hard to remember all the times we have invaded countries—or just bombarded or attacked them incessantly with drones—covertly or overtly, without any international benediction.

The United States is allowed to violate its own rules, as long as it serves our security and other interests as every administration defines them. (...)

The one indispensable nation...

 steeler wrote: 

Yeah, its a dead horse ... but how about the Monroe Doctrine ?

Worked for a couple of hundred years.

steeler wrote:
Kinda.

Some of the criticism isn't about going to war (let's not beat around the bush, ok?) but about going to war without the approval of Congress.

Not that Congress would have objected (at least not enough to stop it) but it would have meant it was a legitimate action with defined goals and Congress on record for and against, and hopefully some limits on scope and scale.

Every single drone strike is an act of war, authorized by one man. This is how kings go to war, not leaders of representative democracies. What happens when somebody finally notices the innocent body count? What do we do, say "Stop that! Stop or we'll...we'll...withdraw our indifferent acquiescence"?

This is life and death, the ultimate exercise in power. The constitution makes it a deliberative process requiring some degree of consensus between the branches of government...for a reason.

 steeler wrote: 
The U.N. is pretty clear about its mission (statement) and supposedly member nations subscribe to that mission, possibly at times at their own expense.

It's also a political body with historical arrangements of power, which explains its relative impotence.

 RichardPrins wrote:
And the U.N. is criticized for not intervening and for intervening, the same damned if you do and damned if you don't quandary. 

However, when a U.N. action is authorized, there at least is the prospect of it being sanctioned by international agreement, if not law.

At this stage, though, international law really is more analogous to a kind of peer pressure.  

  

 steeler wrote:
If one really supports the charter of an organization such as the U.N., it doesn't seem all that difficult. At least as far as policy is concerned. Making it happen is another matter. There is usually lots of messiness/nastiness involved.

Then again, others might be quick to point that a "foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and may choose differently for whatever reasons or justifications they can bring.

 steeler wrote: 
bizactly.

 RichardPrins wrote:  

It could, and certainly may have in the past. 

I'm wondering, though, what the policy should be, and suggesting that it may not be that easy to define what it should be, as opposed to what it should not be .    

 steeler wrote: 
Does it have to do with whether or not a country has important natural resources (excluding human resources)?

 oldslabsides wrote: 

That certainly is one policy:  No intervention or support of any sort in any country under any circumstances