With Liberty and Justice for All...

The following are the criteria for a Just War. Developed from the thinking of St Augustine of Hippo and St Thomas Aquinas.

 

Just cause - The reason for the war must be defense either of oneself or a helpless victim.

 

Comparative justice - The war must be in response to action. (threat of action is debatable)

Competent authority - The individual declaring the war must have sufficient authority to do so (derived from the people's will)

 

Right intention - The war must not include a conflict of interest or selfish gain.

 

Probability of success - The party attempting to be just must have a chance to win.

 

Last resort - The war must be the final act in a series of processes for peace.

 

Proportionality - The war must be fought fairly, such as guns vs guns etc. (This is also greatly debatable.)

I believe a war is just or correct if it adheres in principle to the above list. The union's actions in the Civil War were not just. How so? They meet Just Cause, because they set out to free slaves. They meet Comparative Justice because the CSA mobilized. They meet Competent Authority the Constitution gives the President and Congress the right to declare war. The meet Right Intention, see Just Cause. The meet Probability of Success. They fail to meet Last Resort. Lincoln had many options on the table, he rejected them and he launched the war. The CSA however, presented each of those options and did not intend on combat, but merely a peaceful withdrawing from the union. 

WWI - Just Cause? Possibly, at least for America, we saw the preservation of the Modern European states as a just cause. Comparative Justice? Both sides were being ruthless so response to those actions would qualify. Right Intention? Neither side meets this criteria, except for perhaps America, as we had no chance to gain from the war. Probability of Success? All sides had argument here. Last Resort? Possibly, much peach was bantered about before the war broke. Proportionality? For the most part. Total War allows for civilian casualties. I believe that Total War is just only if the war is truly against the people and not just the government controlling those people, such as with Japan in WWII. The Japanese government may have been totalitarian, but each and every Japanese soldier was willing to die to protect those islands. In Germany however, the public opinion of the war steadily fell and fire bombing Berlin was not a moral action (and in many ways militarily superfluous.)

 

Iraq? Just Cause - stated cause was expansion of freedom (no) and toppling of Hussein (yes) and acquisition of WMDs (yes, though their existence is to this day merely a myth). Comparative Justice - had Iraqi government agents carried out the 9/11 attacks then yes, however there is not evidence they did, so no. Competent Authority - yes, go check the Congressional vote. Right Intention - again, yes unless all the conspiracies about oil acquisition and arms production is true, which I doubt. Probability of Success - almost certainly. Last Resort - debatable, but in relation to the 3 goals I listed under Just Cause, yes. Proportionality - they had tanks, air power and a modern army. As for the overwhelming numerical advantage the Allies possess, Proportionality is describing attacking someone you could instead just bully into submission. Example, Italian tanks flying through Ethiopia killing men on horses. The Italians could have occupied Ethiopia with ease without the mass slaughter. That of course, is only one of the many reasons the Axis offenses in WWII were unjust.

 

So. Self-defense and the defense of another with sufficient evidence grants just war. Lots of relative terms in there, so to clarify: The leadership of a nation, with the support of its people, may wage war in order to protect itself and the interests of its allies, as long as it pursues peace up to and during the conflict.

 

I believe a Pro-Life individual can be in favor of Just War. I am.

Braves took 2 of 3 from the Nats, still looking like the cream of the NL, especially with McCann hurt, Jason on the DL, Beachy still rehabbing and BJ hitting >.200. AND Hudson's 200th win, the one where he beat Gio Gonzalez, went 2-3 with a 2B and a HR and raised his BA% for the year to .386 led me to check his career numbers and evaluate his HOF chances. I think he's in, he's 7th on the all-time winning % list at 200-105 and has good counting numbers even with a season lost to Tommy John's. He's said he wants to play 2 more with Atlanta at least so add a couple more years before he hangs it up and he has a shot at 250. 

Next week, I'll go a different direction again. Let's talk about the music I like, why and why you should too.