Now, on with the journal assignment...
By the time this journal is due you should have read the three essays provided for Segment Two (Fiala, Bar On, Eide). Having done so, state your position on the just war front in regards to America's current military involvement(s). Do you feel that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are, have been, or will be justified? How so? Use one, two, or all three of the authors we have just read to support your statements and claims. If you can or feel compelled to do so, reply to a student's comment by offering further support/agreement or even a rebuttal/rejection.
Other things to consider regarding the topic: How do you view the theory of just war? Can such a theory even exist in our current technological, mechanical, pan-national globe when contrasted to the world of the past? What must we consider for a war to be just? And, crucially, who must we ask for justification and definition of warfare?
Other things to consider regarding the reading: How have one or all of these authors influenced your understanding and conception of war? Do you tend to agree/disagree with one over the other? What is a common thread that exists among two or all three of these authors?
I believe that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not justified and will not ever be justified. After the attacks on September 11, everyone associated the terrorists with Afghanistan and that is what the public were told at the time. However after a few years the USA decided to enter Iraq for the same goal of stopping terrorism. Terrorism unfortunately will probably never be able to be stopped and can only be viewed as a concept, what makes me believe that the war in Iraq was even more un-just was the fact that the United States capture Sadam Hussein and gave him back to his country to be hung. It was obvious that the USA had been using the fuel of the fear of terrorism to complete other objectives around the world. In Bar On's article, the author states that "the threat and implications of Iran's nuclear capabilities and the possibility of a U.S war with Iran have been ominous. In summer 2006, Hezbollah and Israel engaged in a conflict that had the signs of a proxy war between the United States and Iran." Maybe a war with Iran could be justified, providing that if they are developing nuclear weapons and plan to use them then whatever country has a right to stop them if they feel threatened or know something the public does not. The public is not in a position to make claims if a war is just or not, and I also believe that there is such a thing as a just war. The reason why countries go to war can be justified, but that does not mean that the war itself with be fair considering the advanced technology of powers like the USA, Russia, etc. versus smaller nations who would probably have to seek backing from larger nations which in a worst case scenario would lead to world war. I agree with Fiala and his statements that "people must demand evidence and justification from their leaders, while leaders must act based on knowledge they cannot share with the people."
ReplyDelete"Politics is war without bloodshed and war is politics with bloodshed." -Sun Tzu
ReplyDeleteI do not believe in the theory of just war because I know that those who are in leadership who decide whether a war is just or not are usually perpetrating injustice. I question the motives of any politician or leader with the power to bring about the destruction of the earth through nuclear power a hundred times over. The theory of jus ad bellum and jus in bello cannot exist in the current pan-national globe as opposed to the way the world was before WWI, the marking of the beginning of “modern-warfare”.
In a time of turmoil and fear, citizens turn to their politicians for leadership and protection from a threatening force beyond their borders. Andrew Fiala says in his article “Citizenship, Epistemology, and the Just War Theory” that citizens of liberal governments should not merely be expected to obey without consultation but must demand transparency, “‘Whether a war is just or not is not for the private man to judge: he must obey his government.’ This may work for hierarchal governments that demand blind obedience. But liberal government requires trust based on reason, consent, and open information” (Fiala 112) Fiala is grappling with opposing objections to his position on the just war theory saying that this stance may destroy the social contract and breed skepticism amongst citizens. I agree with Fiala that citizens should hold their politicians and leaders accountable for decisions that they make and must demand a certain level of transparency.
I do not agree with the theory of Just War, because I do not believe war can ever be just because someone innocent will always die. The idea behind just war is that we use war to pursue justice. However do we achieve true justice to stop one dictator when in the process we force innocent people to give up their lives? War is inherently unjust, therefore the idea that there can be Just War is complete nonsense. However, whether war is necessary is a completely different question. In order to stop a greater evil you must use your own necessary evil. In truth you're basically fighting fire with fire and sometimes its the only way.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to current US wars I do not believe either are just because as stated above I do not believe any war can be just. However I do believe that war can be necessary, just not the war in Iraq. Fiala states that the citizens should "actively engage them [our leaders] by asking them to justify themselves and state their intentions." (105) Before the war in Iraq the Bush administration anticipated questions about the upcoming war and began to state their case for the justification of force in Iraq. They provided evidence citing intelligence reports and acts of atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein the terrorists he was connected to. Except it was all lies; all of their claims were baseless and fraudulent but they engaged with the citizenry to help justify the war just like Fiala advocates for. Our government lies to us, always have and they always will.
In regards to the current war in Afghanistan, the basis for the war (9/11) gave the war credible claims of justifiability. However there is no reason we should still be at war 8 years later. We need to get our shit together and out this war away. We cannot justify prolonging the exposure of Afghan peoples to the harms of modern war. Had we done the job correctly we could have ended this war, and saved many innocent lives. I do believe that at its origin and early stages the war in Afghanistan was necessary, but the current situation we are in is not necessary or justifiable in any way.
The theory of Just War is a very complex concept. Can a war ever be just? Will modern warfare ever be seen as necessary? These are questions every person on this planet should ask themselves. The current military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq are often questioned by the American public, and for good reason. I believe that these operations specifically are unjust wars. The American public was not given acceptable evidence for these operations and has yet to receive any justifiable evidence in the 8 years since.
ReplyDeleteShould we trust our leaders and military officials to judge if war is justified? The answer should be yes, but as we all know, the military and the government are prone to some misinformation and even corruption. But the problem, as Fiala states, "is whether ordinary citizens are able to judge whether military force is justifiable". As citizens, we do not have access to key information needed to make valid decisions on military necessity. But this should not stop the public from always questioning the government and their motives in military and all other facets of how this country is controlled.
Since the atomic bomb and other modern warfare developments, the idea of war has changed dramatically. Now hundreds of thousands or even millions can be killed with a single attack. With this in mind, it seems no war fought with these techniques can be justified, but in my eyes, sometimes a fight is necessary and if kept an eye on by the people, our country has what it takes to fight a just war.
Just War? An oxymoron in itself! How on earth can war ever be just? The first rebuttal anyone would make toward this sentiment of mine would be that war is sometimes necessary as a means of defense. Crap! This is another crazed assertion made by journalists such as Andrew Fiala. America’s entrance into Iraq in a supposed effort to defend the honor of those killed on September 11th was senseless. War can neither be just nor necessary.
ReplyDeleteGovernment’s decision to initiate war cannot be seen as just. How is it that gang members are sentenced to death or life in prison when they commit murder and governments freely declare war? Before sucking your teeth at my proposal, consider the similarities between gangs and countries at war. There is a typical ‘tit for tat’ pattern of murders among gangs. One guy gets shot; another guy goes after the killer to defend his comrade’s honor. One country is attacked; the other responds by initiating a counter attack. Remind me how any of this is justifiable. I understand that “If leaders did not act to defend their nation, we would say they were not doing their duty” (Fiala 21). Yes, it is depressing, especially for relatives, to see thousands of innocent people dead and have nothing done about it. However, two wrongs do not make a right.
I was bewildered by Andrew Fiala’s bold assertion that there is “no doubt that occasionally some violence is necessary in the real world” (18). Likewise, I am simply incapable of seeing Adam’s logic in his proposal that “fighting fire with fire” is sometimes the only way”. The only exception where war is concerned is immediate self-defense. During the events of Pearl Harbor, the troops rightfully tried their best to fight back and protect who they could. The subsequent revenge pursuit on the other hand, was uncalled for. War is evil. It is simply another excuse to boost one’s pride. Innocent people are slaughtered, especially now with modern warfare and still nothing is achieved.
As for the prospect of government conscience as Fiala and Bar On discuss; it is pure ignorance on the part of citizens to depend on such a farce. Government and morals do not mesh. According to Bar on, “Morality, values, ethics, universal principles… have a second place when it comes to national security issues” (38). Indeed it does. We cannot afford to be passive and allow government to make these huge decisions of mass violence. Fiala says that we should “force them [government] to provide justifications and thus confront their own moral consciences” (32). He makes a big deal about establishing “a high burden of proof on those who would justify” them [war]” (26). Proof or no proof, war is unjust and pointless. We cannot rely on government conscience, that is, if it even exists.
Just war is statement that could possibly never be true. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not and could never be justified. These wars were just a way for the United States to fight the enemy of terrorism. I feel the United States government tried to justify going into these two countries as an action to prevent any further events such as September 11th from happening. This would be the idea of ad bellum that Andrew Fiala speaks about. An example of that is the idea of self defense; we are just fighting in order to defend ourselves after we have just been attacked and that our government must carry out their duty and come to the defense of the people (Fiala 21). Although I do believe that our government should protect us and that they have good intentions which is a part of just war theory, I also believe that the killing of innocent people could never be justified.
ReplyDeleteAndrew Fiala says that we as citizens may never truly know whether or not war is truly justified which I agree with. We are never fully informed of what is really going on over there (Fiala 20). We are only told what the government wants us to know. So if we never know the accurate information as to what is going on, how can we even decide if it justified? But we do know that innocent people are being killed which is not fair to them because they are not at fault. War is something that is meant to cause death. No matter what, an outcome of war will be a large amount of casualties. Just War theory is just a belief that is there to make war seem right. Violence is never the answer, which is something we have all heard before. Taking away the lives of others could never be a moral act. Resorting to fighting could never have a just cause or be a last resort, especially when it comes to modern warfare. New warfare technologies have destroyed many lives. The atomic bomb was is an example of that type of technology and it killed innocent people and destroyed lives by exposing people to radiation. It caused medical problems and babies to be born with deformities. This just shows how war could never be “just”.
The idea of just war is to use necessary and violent acts in the pursuit of justice. Justice being the key word in this, I believe that the Just War theory overall is a hoax. Justice implies a struggle between the two sides good and evil, but in the real world there is rarely a situation as black and white as such. Although government would like to portray it as such, war is NEVER as simple as good v evil. In the case of the War on Terror it is us versus the terrorists; And, many would argue that we are in the right when we infiltrate Iraq and Afghanistan because we understand that terrorist groups like Al-Queda should be stopped for the sake of all mankind. The thing is that the opposing side has its own idea of justice that they mean to pursue which contradicts with our own, and the same applies to every enemy in every war fought. The idea of justice is abstract at best and cannot be readily defined in terms of war, so the Just War theory is just an illusion to help the cause to wage war.
ReplyDeleteOn the point that Adam posed of whether war is necessary or not, I can support the war on terror because it does protect the people from evil intentions. The question that Fiala asks in his article "Citizenship, Epistemology, and the Just War Theory" of whether modern warfare is justified, in certain cases it is. The issue of nuclear weapons is surely controversial. The incident in WWII, the bombing of Hiroshima was defended by our military leaders saying that it prevented a prolonged war effort from Japan and probably saved lives. We may never know whether that was true or not, but I believe that overall modern warfare does save many lives by forcing the opposing side to submit and ending the war as soon as possible. This idea of ad bellum, of preemtive strikes to prevent large scale battles justifies modern warfare.
I don’t believe in just war because like Adam said, war can never be just. Was will always result in unnecessary casualties and the death of the innocent, like Fiala states on page 19, “…warfare is immoral…involve[s] the indiscriminate killing of innocents.” I do not, however, believe war is avoidable. If a country cannot protect itself and its citizens against the world then who will? We cannot undoubtedly say that another country will not choose to attack or overpower a country that not willing to fight for its citizens and itself by showing its power and strength to its oppressor. Although war cannot be just in the sense of its morality, I cannot say it is unjust in the protection of itself and its people. I take in example World War II and Germany. If not the self defense and counter attacks of the allied nations, Germany may have succeeded in conquering all countries Russia prevented it from reaching. Although this is not the best of examples, my point is that war is inevitable and necessary in order for oppressed countries to shield themselves from overpowering nations.
ReplyDeleteIn Fiala’s article, the author continues to state, “OUR DUTY IS TO QUESTION AND DEMAND PROOF” (Fiala 19). Question and demand proof from whom? The government? What allows us to believe this proof we will receive is valid, is true? What does not prevent us from believing that the proof we will receive is not in fact sugar coated lies covering up the reality of why the country is in war? These are all questions I ask when I read through Fiala’s essay, coming across numerous phrases and statements as such. In reality, no one will give us a straight forward and legit answer as to why we are in war, why innocent people are being killed. Society will always receive an answer they want to hear, a reason the majority of the country will agree with the government on.
The government’s reason for being in Iraq was to find weapons of mass destruction. With such a reason presenting threat and scare to the public, much of the country supported Bush in entering Iraq. Now, the majority of the country is blaming Bush for his actions. What good did it do that the government gave us a reason we supported and are now against? What allows us to believe or disbelieve that there were in actuality or were not weapons of mass destruction. We cannot say whether the government’s intentions were in reality the weapons or a reason unknown to us. These questions, concerns, will never be answered because no one is willing to answer them. So here I come back to Fiala’s repeated statement. Who do we expect to give us a legit reason if we do not and will never know of the government’s intentions.
The View of Just war can be argued as idealistic because what seems fair to a group of people might not coincide with another groups opinion. In the end someone will always be on the destructive side of war. Just war is a subject that no one person can decide, or a large group of people because even a little bit of violence used for justice can have loose ends. Like Izzy mentioned in her response, “I do not believe in the theory of just war because I know that those who are in leadership who decide whether a war is just or not are usually perpetrating injustice.” I agree with this because most leaders use fear tactics and other rhetoric to convince congress to see a problem that is truly not a problem. The conflict in Iraq is a good example of government using fear and other topics to convince congress to intervene with a country. The examples that were given ranged from finding weapons of mass destruction and the relation between the country and terrorist groups in the area. Andrew Fiala mentions in his article, “in a liberal democracy, it is not a citizen’s immediate duty to support a war. Rather, it is the government’s duty to convince the citizens they should support the war by offering proof about the justice of the cause and the intention to utilize just means”(Fiala 26). Because it is up to the government to convince it’s citizens that the reason we are invading a country is for justice, there can be people who want war of all things and use fear to have a nation follow it’s leader. There were even people in congress that truly believed by going into a country to find WMDs it was permission to invade the country and kill a bunch of innocent people. As we all know from watching the news over the past couple years such weapons were never found. So in the end the last conflict was an example of unjust war, as a bigger and stronger country to go into a weaker country because they have created “threats” but what the country could have collected as information could be false and we then spend 8 years in a country. I would not be surprised if half the soldiers fighting knew what the reason for their attendance in Iraq is. In the end, Just war is only a vision because to have violence for justice when people are just following their leaders can always lead to false rhetoric and then loss of innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteI dont believe war can ever justified. People will always have different opinions based on the information that they are aware of. Like Andrew Fiala states in his article, "Citizenship,Epistemology,and the Just War Theory", "we [citizens] do not have access to the kind of information we would need in order to know whether the means of war [...]were justifiable",people are much too unaware of military situations to judge whether a war can be justified. I believe that the wars in Iraq and Afganistan will never be justified because we dont hear both sides equally. Ofcourse American government wants citizens to be on the American side and they do whatever it takes to encourage that. Therefore the current wars cant be justified.War in general involves extreme violence and death, therefore we should discourage war in every sense unless the nation is being attacked.Tricia states in her journal that "How can war ever be just?" This statement should make society realize that war is vicious and involves the death of millions of innocent people. Also, it is very hard for Americans to choose a side because our information in that area is extremely limited. Andrew Fiala helped me realize how war can never be justified especially by Americans ,like us, with very limited information regarding war.
ReplyDeleteSeemingly, the concept of a "just war" tip-toes the line between sanity and madness. The idea itself appears to have come into existence in order to support the ideologies of government and military alike, in that they are forced to commit what are often referred to as necessary evils. The phrase itself, "just war," brings about the very same sentiment as an the concepts of "Reality TV" and "plastic glasses," both examples of oxymoron. After all, isn't "just war" a euphemism for "humane murder?" In this sense, there is no way the current wars in Afghanistan and Iraq can be justifiable, for no war exists without the exploitation and suffering of the innocent. However, in desperation, logic and sympathy are rarely visible traits, as "we are not usually philosophical in moment of crisis" (Bar On, p. 36). More often than not, our selected leaders (or decision-makers) react swiftly and boldly not only in order to be effective, but so as not to appear weak. Thus, the infamous and proverbial concept of cause and effect is evidently the only excuse available for waging war.
ReplyDeleteHowever, those opposed to war, who recognize the concept of "just war" as an outrage, will never prevail. The American Wars in the Middle East will never be justified, but it will never be truly necessary. The subject and its information is polluted with hidden motives, masked beneficiaries, and other information unknown and unavailable by the American public. Andrew Fiala argues that citizens are "unable to judge whether military force is justifiable," but this is only because they aren't given the opportunity. Perhaps this knowledge is too overwhelming, but one must call into question the era of the war in Vietnam. Overwhelming media coverage played a role in the end of the war, as the nation's citizens were able to witness the apparent madness. This information and knowledge is unavailable today, and it is ridiculous for the public not to question the reasoning. It may be an attempt at protection, but it may also be that those who benefit hold a sense of power. So, while as a rule war is unjust, our wars will continue to be justified by controlled media and propaganda.