Is There a Moral Argument for Just War in Syria?
There has been much recent discussion of the political and legal arguments for and against striking military targets in Syria in response to the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons against civilians. But the prospect of U.S. attacks against Syria raises moral issues as well.
One is whether the use of chemical weapons provides a reason for military intervention. Security of State John Kerry's description of the chemical attacks as a "moral obscenity" suggests that the administration believes that these attacks have significantly strengthened the case for military action. But in fact they add comparatively little to the moral case.
The main reason for the legal prohibitions of the use of chemical weapons is that even purely military uses of such weapons are more likely to be disproportionate in the harms they inflict on civilians than the use of conventional weapons. This is because weather conditions can cause even a precisely targeted chemical attack to harm or kill innocent bystanders a considerable distance from the target area. So the moral reason for the prohibitions is primarily to protect civilians from being harmed as a side effect of attacks on enemy forces.
But the Syrian regime's aim in attacking residential areas with chemical weapons was precisely to kill civilians. There is therefore only one reason why it might have been slightly less seriously wrong if the regime had killed and injured an equivalent number of civilians using conventional weapons instead. This is that a massacre with conventional weapons would not have challenged the valuable legal prohibitions of chemical attacks. Thus, the only additional reason to attack Syria that derives from the regime's use of chemical weapons is to deter future uses by Syria and others by enforcing the prohibitions (even though Syria is not legally subject to two of them).
There are many versions of the theory of the just war but all of them agree that even limited belligerent action, such as the "surgical strikes" that the Obama administration is contemplating, must have a "just cause" -- that is, an aim that is not merely good or desirable but actually just . - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-mcmahan/just-war-syria_b_3836756.html
*************************************
I don't like posting large clips from an article, I use snippets and a link, trusting that if a reader is really interested in the topic, they will read it. In this article, there are minor points I disagree with. Nonetheless, in the end it still comes down to the moral justification (or rationalization) of starting a war with Syria.
While there are alternatives, The Just War Theory (also referred to as Just War Doctrine and Just War Principles)is the West's quintessential document concerning whether war is justified itself. It is part of the curricular at West Point.
Here is a list of the points;
- A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
- A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
- A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
- A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
- The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
- The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.
All these elements must be answered in the affirmative to comply with the "Just War Doctrine" Failure to do so does NOT indicate any "immorality" per se, but it does open the door for legitimate doubt and discussion as to the rationalization of war.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
Has anyone seriously tried to call for a "ceasefire" and tried to get all the sides together and talk?
NO.
A qualified, Yes.
From a historical perspective, the United States takes great pride in intervening on behalf of those who cannot protect themselves. Holocaust survivors believe, that even with all of the death and destruction of both WWI & WWII, the US did the right thing. The human cost was immense and the moral reward was the systematic genocide of innocent human beings was stopped. We hold fast to the good things that the greatest generation achieved.
To apply this standard to every war is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless, it is used to justify inappropriate military intervention. We all know there have been presidents who have applied this standard wrongly. The real question is "Is this one of those situations that US involvement is a moral imperative?
I'm not sure Syrians can be protected from either the rebels or their government during or after this ends, without boots on the ground. Whether that be the US or UN boots. I'm conflicted on this issue, merely because of my ignorance of the facts.
I'm not sure if referencing the "just war doctrine" applies to Syria . Did it apply to Libya ? Neither of these situations constitute a US war , but rather a military "intrusion" or maybe "intervention" depending on your stance .
So you agree, no one has tried. Already, we have one count against any military action;
And may I add it is Obama's own words in declaring a red-line without even a hint of pursuing non-military actions, that negates him.
Someone else brought up the issue of the aftermath of a loss by Assad . In the middle east the "bestest" policy may be to make both sides of nearly equal strength so that they keep killing each other . Just an ugly thought that floats around in my brain because using western standards for the middle east is a proven recipe for failure .
All military actions are war. There are no exceptions. To understand the applications of the Just War Principles, one would have to read Aquinass Summa Theologica or any number of applicable moral or philosophical books on the topic.
Only those whom are war-mongering eunuchs, ideological extremists, corporate lawyers and those with hidden political and financial agendas will quibble about the semantics.
Those screaming for war here have no desire to see Peace.
OvO, the point I have been trying to make over and over in many different threads is the assumption that if we strike, Assad is going to pick up his marbles and be a good boy.
That is speculation at it's wildest. He fighting for his life and will use what he has and strike back IMO. If he does, what are we going to do? No one wants to answer that question.
He has, according to some Military experts, the largest stockpile of WMD in the world. The Military has said, it would take 75,000 to 100,000 boots on the ground to secure all the weapons. (TV interview with two Generals)
But we are off in never never land, thinking that our military might is going to end this with a couple of strikes. Bullshit, it ain't gonna happen.
All those wanting this ''strike'', send your kids or grandkids to fight. I'm not making that mistake again.
Agreed OvO,
All of the wars that we have been in since WWII, have done little to save lives. Think Vietnam.
Enough is enough.
Agree 100% OvO.
I want to say "if you push long enough and hard enough it will come out the other side". So all these countries are saying Assad committed the crime of using these weapons on his own people. I guess they all are sitting on bleachers looking at the civil war going on in Syria. That's right.... it has been a week or so and there is no question in our minds anymore. It was said to be and so it is after a few days to be absolutely true without a shadow of doubt to be true 100% and just forget there was any doubt ever before. Also forget UN said the rebels were responsible for the first crime and were actually playing the part of the loser during the last crime.
If Syria Used WMD, It Violated International Law. But So Would a US...
First: did Syrias use of chemical weapons put it in violation of international law? I should begin by pointing out that Syria is still only suspectedof having used these weapons, and the UN investigation into the source of the attack is still ongoing .
"Here" meaning the U.S. Damn, you are getting self-defensive.
The real justification for this potential "intervention" is that it will justify Obama's middle eastern creation ... the Arab spring . We can't have Arabs gittin' hot under the collar just to be slaughtered by their respective dictators ...