Discerning the Difference between Just and Unjust Wars

Discerning the Difference between Just and Unjust Wars
by David T. Pyne, Esq., Columnist and Legal Analyst

September 27, 2002

Columnist David Pyne In the debate which continues to be waged over whether the US should invade Iraq, there appears to be almost a complete lack of knowledge, regard or interest in the concept of just and unjust wars as applied by US policymakers with a few notable exceptions such as conservative leaders like House Majority Leader, Dick Armey (R-TX) and Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS). An unprovoked invasion of Iraq when combined with the new Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive attacks represents a complete reversal from 225 years of proud American adherence to the just war tradition by past US presidents. Pre-emptive and unprovoked attacks are presumptively illegal under international law and with very few exceptions cannot be justified.

There are, in fact, only a few rationales for fighting just wars. St. Thomas Acquinas, a famed Catholic philosopher, is one of the best articulators of just war theory. He listed three principal rationale, which would suffice to make a war just. The first possible rationale is self-defense. One example of self-defense would be when the US initiated its war on terrorism in direct response to a terrorist attack which resulted in the deaths of US citizens directly supported by the targeted countries as in the case of Afghanistan and Iran. The second is defense of another as when the US came to Kuwait's aid in response to Iraqi aggression in 1990. The third is 'extreme necessity' where there is an imminent threat of nuclear attack or in response to a clear and present danger of such attack. Examples of extreme necessity might include North Korea, which has threatened to turn the US into "a sea of fire" and the People's Republic of China, which has threatened to annihilate Los Angeles if we help defend Taiwan from ChiCom aggression.

Other potentially justifiable rationales for military inclusion might include combating a continuing threat of Communist aggression such as by invading Cuba which continues to arm and directly support terrorists and Communist guerillas and subversives throughout the Western Hemisphere or to recapture lost territory which properly belongs to a country by treaty or otherwise as might be the case were the US to re-occupy the Panama Canal. A final justifiable initiation of military action might include a pre-emptive strike to pre-emptively and surgically destroy an enemy nation's nuclear weapons production capability with minimum loss of civilian lives as the Israelis did when they destroyed the Iraqi Osirik nuclear reactor in 1981. Examples of just wars in US history are World War Two, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm. Examples of unjust wars and invasions are Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and potentially a new unprovoked US invasion of Iraq. If any war does not properly fall under one of these categories or if the war is waged without provocation as an act of aggression against a country which has not violated any international borders, then that war may be deemed 'unjust'.

Wars, regardless of whether they are waged for a just or unjust cause, may also be justly or unjustly fought. A war is justly fought by a given country, inasmuch as that country's leadership seeks to use all reasonable means at their disposal to avoid the infliction of civilian casualties. The deliberate targeting of civilians using conventional or unconventional weapons by definition makes a war unjustly fought by the side seeking the mass killing of innocent civilians in the opposing country. Operation Desert Storm is a recent example of a US war that was both waged for a just cause and justly fought. An example of a just war unjustly fought to a significant degree is World War Two when the US deliberately targeted and killed over a million innocent Japanese non-combatants by terror bombings using both conventional and unconventional (atomic) means. In almost all other respects, that war was justly fought by the US. Vietnam might be another example of a just war, which was at least in part, unjustly fought.

Kosovo was one of the best modern examples in American history of an unjust war unjustly fought inasmuch as the US intervened in a civil war being waged between the Marxist government and the Islamicist terrorist separatists fighting to establish a 'Greater Albania' on the side of the terrorists. The Clinton Administration bombed a lot of civilian targets in Belgrade in an attempt to terrorize the Yugoslav people into overthrowing their government or getting President Milosevich to submit to NATO aggression. The war in Kosovo was unjustly fought by the US and NATO because they targeted enemy non-combatants by conducting terror bombing raids against Belgrade and committing gross negligence in attacking Kosovar civilian and truck convoys and buses. In all, NATO bombers killed nearly a thousand innocent Serb and Kosovar Albanian civilians some by mistake, but many if not most were killed by deliberate action.

The US-UK bombing of Iraq from 1998 to the present was unjust inasmuch as it was not initiated in response to any Iraqi aggression, but merely in an attempt by President Clinton to wag the dog and disrupt and delay the House vote, which impeached him. It has been continued on a weekly basis through the present day to punish Saddam for failing to bow to the will of the United Nations and allow UN weapons inspectors to re-enter the country. Although Saddam has agreed to the reintroduction of inspectors into Iraq, the bombings continue and the President has signaled his intention to proceed with plans for a US invasion. The enforcement of UN-mandated anti-sovereignty no-fly zones by US planes resulting in the deaths of sixteen American soldiers from friendly fire in 1994 has also served as an insufficient pretext for the continued US bombings, let alone a full-scale US invasion.

Applying the principles of America's just war tradition to the planned unprovoked war against Iraq then, it is clear that a new US invasion of Iraq would not meet any of the requirements for being a just war. An invasion of Iraq would not be in our national self-defense, as Iraq has never attacked our country. It would not be waged in defense of another, as was Operation Desert Storm, as Iraq has not invaded any of its neighbors since 1990. It would not be conducted in response to any extreme necessity or danger to the US, let alone any necessity since Iraq lacks either or both the will and the capability to attack US territory and kill US civilians by any means. Iraq possesses neither nuclear weapons nor the long-range missiles needed to deliver them against the US. It has possessed Chemical Biological Radiological (CBR) weapons for two decades, but has never even threatened to use them against the US. In addition, President Bush has all but admitted that Iraq has not sponsored any terrorist attacks against the US by failing to cite any in his speech to the UN so a US invasion would not be in response to any Iraqi terrorist attack.

A US invasion of Iraq would not be just and might be unjustly fought if the US were to use nuclear weapons against Baghdad in response to Iraqi CBR attacks against US troops. Given these facts, it is time for the Bush Administration to heed the wise counsel of the many retired generals, former Bush Sr. Gulf War Cabinet officials and conservative Republican leaders who have voiced their opposition to bogging down US forces in an invasion of Iraq that would serve as an unnecessary and potentially dangerous diversion from the war on terror by abandoning its plans to invade Iraq. Hopefully, Congress will heed their advice as well and defeat the resolution authorizing the President to use military force against Iraq. ***

David T. Pyne, Esq. is a national security expert who serves as President of the Center for the National Security Interest, a pro-defense, national security think-tank located in Arlington, VA. He has served as an International Programs Manager in the Department of the Army responsible for the countries of the former Soviet Union and the Middle East among others and has traveled as a member of Department of Defense and Department of the Army-led delegations to Canada, South Africa, Israel, Brazil and Argentina. Mr. Pyne is a licensed attorney and former Army Reserve Officer. In addition, he holds an MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University. Mr. Pyne also serves as Executive Vice President of the Virginia Republican Assembly. He is a member of the Center for Emerging National Security Affairs based in Washington, DC. Mr. Pyne serves as a columnist for American-Partisan.com , OpinioNet.net and America's Voices. He is also a regular contributor for Patriotist.com. In addition, his articles have appeared on Etherzone.com, Sierratimes.com, OriginalDissent.com and AmericanReformation.org where he serves as a national security policy analyst. He has been cited in the New American Magazine and was recently interviewed on Howard Phillips' Conservative Roundtable TV program.

Republication and distribution encouraged with copyright notices intact.