The "Just War" theory.

[Robb]

Was discussing this with a friend, and I think it might help us understand one another here on the Afghanistan plan.

There are those who believe there is no such thing as a "just" war, that war is inherently unjust and there are no wars worth fighting. There are those who believe otherwise, of course.

Where are you, and how does that inform your opinion of Obama's speech last night? I'm sticking in three options, because presumably there is no one who agrees with the plan but is against all war, as that would be a contradiction. I'm also sticking in the ubiquitous "other" for those who are ambivalent, undecided, or otherwise left out of the other choices.

Please, vote and chime in.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. Some information on Just War and Afghanistan...

From "The Nation"
Defining a Just War October 11, 2001
Here is another link that discusses Just War:

Just War Theory
The principles of the justice of war are commonly held to be: having just cause, being a last resort, being declared by a proper authority, possessing right intention, having a reasonable chance of success, and the end being proportional to the means used.

In my opinion, Afghanistan, in its origins, was a Just War.

More important than the idea of Just War in my opinion is that Afghanistan was a necessary war. Al Qaida committed an attack against civilian targets for the purpose of terrorizing the population of the U.S. (Technically, their attack on the Pentagon was not a war crime as the Pentagon is a valid military target. Their method of attacking the Pentagon was a war crime because of the indiscrinate death of civilians in the aircraft.) The UN and the U.S. demanded that Bin Laden be turned over. They did not do so. In order to attempt to bring the perpetrator of a monstrous crime to justice, the U.S. used about 4,000 soldiers and the Northern Alliance to take down the Afghan government. Once that government was taken apart, we were required as occupiers to ensure reasonable safety of the population until a new government could take over.

Bush screwed the pooch because his target from the onset was Iraq rather than destroying Al Qaida and removing the Taliban government that refused to give him up.

But people who believe that no war can be Just or Necessary are not going to accept any set of circumstances where the conflict continues.

[Sinti]

3. The Taliban Government offered OBL to Bush - Bush refused

This, too, was a war of choice.

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.

Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty". In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5

[Ozymanithrax]

4. No, the never offered him to Bush. (I assume you mean the U.S. government.)

They offed in negotiation to find some way that they could turn him over to a third party. But they refused both the UN and the U.S. legal demands. Once they refused those demands, they became a party to Bin Laden's attack upon the U.S. The U.N. security council approved action. Authorization to use force was legally gain by Bush. (Approved, among others, by Denis Kucinich, that war monger).

There was nothing that required the U.S. and UN to negotiate forever. They made every reasonable attempt and the Taliban refused, I've read, because of their unwillingness to turn over a Muslim to a non-Muslim state. It cost them dearly. But, it did fulfill the requirements for a Just war.

[Sinti]

6. By 'just' you mean the majority agreed we could go in there

For me, bombing people who are already living in bombed out buildings is beyond the pale. Did the Afghan people bomb us? Should people living in gang-ridden, poverty-stricken neighborhoods be imprisoned and given the death penalty for allowing gangs to live among them?

I did not say it was an 'illegal' war. There is so much that is just plain wrong with it, though, I personally cannot in good conscience say it is just. I understand that others' opinions may differ, and that's okay. Without different opinions there would be no conversation, right :) We could all just sit and be smugly wise and silent together.

At this time, in this war, apparently a private contractor we hire to guard the roads is also paying for the Taliban gang of thugs to carry on the violence. We allow such conflicts of interest. This is only one known example of this happening - I'd bet there are thousands. Cutting off funding streams and such for any moving army is a much more effective way of shutting them down. There are also other tools in the peace toolbox we can use, such as food supplies, and regional diplomatic efforts with Afghanistan's neighbors. OTOH, if what we are simply dealing with village-style rebellions to our boot, then leaving immediately is the only answer.

I don't put Denis on a pedestal. He is a man and has clay feet like every other man. That doesn't detract from the good things for me. No sense in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

As far as the Muslim to a non-Muslim state, he could have been turned over to Saudi Arabia, or some other Muslim allied state. Personally, I don't trust Bush. Bush wanted to get his war on, and let's face it, we wanted revenge on someone. Just because he managed to get legal authority doesn't mean he was right. Plenty of things are both legal and totally abhorrent.

[RoyGBiv]

2. Theory ...

I'm guessing the meaning of the term "just" and the perception people have of that idea will skew the results of this sort of poll.

I believe one could argue different levels of justness for any given conflict. By classical theory, the United States' involvement in WWII was just. But on a more individualistic level, would a simple farmer living in Germany consider the war just if he played no direct, intentional part in the invasion of other European countries and actively avoided to the best of his ability lending his labor to the German war machine but who nonetheless suffered the fate of so many German citizens in losing his his property, his family, or his life? Again classical theory has a solution for this apparent dilemma in the theory of the social contract. His participation in the society that allowed him to reap the benefits of the social contract bound him to his nation's fate.

I think that when we speak of a "just" or "unjust" war we often conflate the classically philosophical meanings of the terms with our own ideas about personal or social "justice," which isn't the same. Even classical theory recognize this to an extent through the delineation between the state of nature's perpetual war and the social contract's goal of lasting peace. If everyone follows the rules, in other words, we would have no war, and justice would be perfect. Sadly, we as human animals cannot avoid entirely our state of nature.

I would further suggest that this commonly held idea is impossible to achieve in the real world. An Iraqi citizen could make a very good claim to waging a just war against the United States and all its citizens by invoking our own classical just war theory. However I suspect many individuals would rightly claim this as unjust and they themselves facing a lack of justice in being punished for the actions of a government it did not support and people with whom they disagreed viciously and at their own personal sacrifice.

For me, personally, I think all war is unjust on some level and may be justifiable on another. With great reluctance I support Obama's plan, largely due to the failures of our previous administration leaving an intolerable situation both for our own interests and those of the common Afghan people.

[Clio the Leo]

5. I always get a kick out of how the results of polls.....

.... rate against what SEEMS to be the prevailing thought on the board.

And I'm always reassured. ;)

[Robb]

8. It is illustrative, I agree. nt

[dionysus]

7. i'd like a "should have been years ago but it's too late now" choice