Christine Smith’s Blog

When was the last “just war”?

 I oppose the use of force in violation of another’s rights.

However, I am not a pacifist.  Whether on an individual or national level, I support self-defense.  The use of force to stop an aggressor who is violating another’s rights is justified. 

Thus, I’ve read with interest the concept of a “just war,” which dates back to Cicero, including the Just War Theory or Doctrine found in my own faith of Catholicism.  It delineates, from a moral perspective, the reasons and means in which war can be fought in order to be considered just in the eyes of the Church, including as a prerequisite that all other viable alternatives have been attempted first, and that if war ensues that humane treatment of prisoners of war and others involved is maintained. Essentially it condones self-defense, and puts a trust in the government of a nation to declare war.

To discern the truth about any conflict requires examination of the whole matter not merely the picture one’s government paints for them.

Everyone likes to think that the U.S. government has always been “just” and righteous in its use of force, but obviously it has violated such principles, terrorizing and killing civilian populations, as well as engaging in torture.  Regardless of what an “enemy” has done, such evil is never justified. The U.S. government is one of the worst offenders in its arrogant use of its might worldwide.  “Might” does not make “right,” but our government has misused its power for decades.

The result of waging unjust wars is never favorable.  For the goal of regime change (to a more favorable government toward U.S. agendas) many people die, hostility toward the U.S. heightens, and civil liberties in America are trampled. 

So, again, I consider the question what wars this government was involved in adhered to the principles of The Just War Doctrine, or were most conflicts avoidable?

As I consider the use of our military, I am unable to identify an instance offhand where 1. Other means besides warfare were really attempted.  2. It was declared with proper authority (in our case, by Congress) 2. Loss of civilian life and property were respected, with civilians not being indiscriminately harmed or killed.  3. There was (what I consider the only legitimate reason) a violent aggressor threatening the United States who had to be stopped. 

Former President Jimmy Carter addressed such issues in regards to the idea of a war against Iraq in his March 9, 2003 piece, “Just War — or a Just War?” in the New York Times.

The instances this government has engaged in war (at least in recent history I recall) have all been fought with all manner of “good causes” being cited often with loads of rhetoric about “defending our freedom” or “spreading democracy.”  But which military actions defended our freedom?  And as for “spreading democracy,” that is not a valid reason for war whether one considers the “just war” theory or the U.S. Constitution.  On the contrary, we could have been a nation at peace if peace had been our goal. Most of our conflicts have not been declared by Congress nor were they presidential responses to a “sudden attack.”

Peace has never been the goal of the U.S. government, and thus warfare continues.  Real motives are concealed and cloaked with a facade of all the “reasons” force must be used, and like obedient children, the American people have often passively accepted whatever is told them.

But what about WWII and the Japanese attack at Pearl Harbor?  Though Americans were predominately against entering the war, Pearl Harbor of course changed that immediately.   Surely, most argue, our involvement in WWII was justified morally. This prevalent belief comes with deep emotions due to the horrendous evil Hitler’s regime perpetrated, but one must also recall until Pearl Harbor, Americans did not want to be involved.  So, were we the innocent bystanders, uninvolved, until we were attacked on December 7, 1941?

The U.S. government had been involved in economic warfare against the Japanese for some time, with the end result of provoking them to attack us.  Void of such assaults and involvement militarily with the British against Germany, Japan would likely have not attacked nor Germany declared war.  Roosevelt’s policies drew the United States into war. Americans at the time wanted no part in it, preferring non-interventionism to jumping into a European and Asian imperialistic conflict with the empire of Britain. 

One of the best articles examining this is by Robert Higgs and published in the May 2006 issue of The Freeman magazine, “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor.“  I recommend everyone read that informative piece, and for further research any number of books and discussions at the Independent Institutes’s Pearl Harbor Archive.

As Jacob G. Hornberger wrote of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in his Dec. 1991 article, “December 7, 1941: The Infamy of FDR,” “Nevertheless, the man who did everything he could in the 1930s to destroy America’s legacy of economic liberty proceeded on a fateful — and illegal — course of action: waging undeclared war on Germany and Japan in an attempt to maneuver them into “Firing the first shot” — thereby justifying America’s formal entry into the war.”   Hornberger’s  article is a must read to clarify and illumine any American who still believes the myths about our entry into WWII that most of us have been taught. 

Regardless of how Americans might “feel,” about any number of the military conflicts, if such conflicts violate our very Constitution they cannot be justified.  An excellent examination of this point, also by Hornberger, can be found in his April 2002 piece, “Declaring and Waging War: The U.S. Constitution.”

To attack and invade nations who have not attacked or are even capable of threatening us allies is unjust.  As Major General Smedley D. Butler wrote in his War is a Racket piece, “A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.”

The question then arises of our allies.  Just as an individual will protect his family and friends, it is natural to think a nation do the same.  The “just war” theory provides for this, but our Constitution necessitates Congress declaring it (and they should, I think, make American security/defense the criteria - the protection of our rights)…not a president deciding unilaterally to take action.  But only Congress should be able to commit our troops (troops who have agreed to defend our nation, not necessarily agreeing to defend other nations). Otherwise, neutrality should be observed as a nation.  If the American people empathize with those suffering under tyranny and persecution elsewhere, they always have the prerogative of supporting them with their money and their lives. Humanitarian efforts must always be voluntary, willing, actions from private citizenry not the government. (The U.S. government has never waged a war on behalf of concern for the “rights” of others anyway, consider their utter disregard, as only one example, for the lives of Jews escaping Nazi tyranny when they turned away refugees on what is now referred to as ‘The Voyage of the Damned.’ Humanitarian claims are simply a good cover for empire building.). Since WWII is still the most oft-cited example by those legitimately concerned with the fight against evil and its oppression in this world, I also recommend another article by Robert Higgs, “Truncating the Antecedents - How Americans Have Been Misled about World War II.”

What wars in recent history can be justified morally and constitutionally?  What of our on-going occupations and numerous bases worldwide?  When, if ever, have we been fighting truly in self-defense of the United States, opposing a force that seeks to dominate us,  rather than being the instigator for agendas which are far from the principles we were founded upon?  Getting government out of the business of war is the prerequisite to liberty, security, peace and prosperity.

This area is an example where one’s conscience should do the choosing between right and wrong, even if in defiance of popular sentiment from one’s society, nation or Church.