Jus ad Bellum and Preemptive War

Just War Theory comes out of the Christian Tradition. St. Augustine is typically seen as its source. One element of the labeled Bush Doctrine is preemptive war. Below is St Thomas' meditation of whether waging war is lawful from question 40 of the second part of the second part of the Summa Theologica.

Whether it is always sinful to wage war?



Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.


Objection 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.


Objection 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.


Objection 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.


On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [*Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [*Lk. 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."


I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."


Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (Questions. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."


Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."


Reply to Objection 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.


Reply to Objection 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."


Reply to Objection 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."


Reply to Objection 4: Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. In olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [*Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].

The question: is preemptive war justifiable?

I chose yes.

If someone wronged me, I would plan to make it right!:shame: :2thumbsup:

No since what if they went to war with you preemptively because they thought you were gonna perform a preemptive strike on them and the cycle just continues.

Pre-emptive strikes can, if done correctly, achieve complete surprise and provide minimal losses in men and equipment on both sides in comparison to a drawn out war.

So the question you have to ask is:

Do you want to be the one to fire the first shot?

No it is not. Not for the Japaneese or the Germans or us.

justifiable? maybe, depending on circumstances.

Moral? Never.

I would like to point the Israeli aircraft strike on the Egyptians as a justifiable pre-emptive strike. It destroyed the Egyptian aircraft, and knocked them out of the war, a war that Israel had to survive. I think it was the Six Days War, but I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marshal Murat

I would like to point the Israeli aircraft strike on the Egyptians as a justifiable pre-emptive strike. It destroyed the Egyptian aircraft, and knocked them out of the war, a war that Israel had to survive. I think it was the Six Days War, but I'm not sure.

---

You are correct. The "Six Days War" of 1967 featured an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Credible evidence suggests that the Israelis were correct in assuming that a coordinated attack by all three of these "arab" nations was iminent. Israeli air elements achieved an astounding level of destruction among the under-prepared arab air forces and Israeli ground forces made extremely sizeable gains in a very short period of time (Gaza, Sinai [sic?], West Bank, Golan Heights).

Be aware, MM, that there are those who view ANY pre-emptive effort --even with confirmed evidence of a clear and compelling danger -- to be immoral and unsupportable. They view a violent response after the accomplished fact of having been attacked as the only moral/justifiable reason for violence -- the sole casum bellum.

Under that rubric, since no wrong had been received by Israel, the "Six Days War" was simply a war of conquest.

I believe that the concept of the just war was one of justice through violence, of redressing wrongs through warfare. A pre-emptive strike would not fall into this category. IIRC of course.

Such a morality would hardly be binding to a nation such as Israel, however.

I vote on the moral aspect of such a war rather than the practical side.

A preemptive war could be justified, although whether or not such justification would matter at all is another issue. As silly as it sounds, in a defensive war you can say, "He started it!" There is not such cover in a preemptive strike.

As we have so amply learned in Iraq, if the pretext(s) you use for your action turn out to be false, you're gonna wind up with egg on your face and precious few allies or sympathetic powers.

Preemptive war can be justified, but the preemptor risks goodwill, stature and the moral high ground. Heavy stuff to weigh the next time you think about showing Lichtenstein who's the big man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A preemptive war could be justified, although whether or not such justification would matter at all is another issue. As silly as it sounds, in a defensive war you can say, "He started it!" There is not such cover in a preemptive strike.

As we have so amply learned in Iraq, if the pretext(s) you use for your action turn out to be false, you're gonna wind up with egg on your face and precious few allies or sympathetic powers.

Preemptive war can be justified, but the preemptor risks goodwill, stature and the moral high ground. Heavy stuff to weigh the next time you think about showing Lichtenstein who's the big man.

---

What he said.

Yes, if you have almost water tight evidence that an enemy attack is imminent.

It also doesn't make sense for a large nation (U.S.A.) to pre-emptive strike another nation. While it does yield benefits of overwhelming surprise, the surpise should be reserved if the enemy can punish you before you strike. There was no real threat of Iraq shipping a nuke into the U.S. and blowing it up, and if it did, it would be pummeled by NATO and the U.S.

I think a preemptive war is justifiable fairly easily, proving intention is always difficult but if a real and emminent threat is there then I feel it justified. (For the record I've never considered Iraq a threat to the US)

A preemptive war would only be moral in my opinion, if the preemptive war would be ensured to be to be significantly shorter or less casualty intensive than a regular war. This of course can never be proven, only speculated in what if hindsight. (French or British going to war with Germany 1934-39 for example).

Preemptive war is the case equivalent of attempting self defense when there's only a non-actual menace. I say no, it's perfectly rational though, but not sufficiently substantiated until the imminent becomes actual. Is just a fortiori reasoning, if an individual's life is important enough for the menace to be actual, then it should be the same at least when there's a group of human lives at stake.

I take it we have all been reading Michael Walzer's 'Just & Unjust Wars'?...

Walzer uses the British plan to attack Norway in WW2 as an example IIRC...this seems to me to be pretty much a reasonable example of a pre-emptive strike. ie- that by doing an unjust act (attack norway) you will be a) serving norwegian interests (whether they know it and/or actually appreciate it) in the long term which in turn leads to b) increases your chances of success in the conflict.

This of course can lead to 'slippery slope' situations where you can justify pretty much anything...

Justifiable, yes.

Moral, no.

But morality has no place in affairs of state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sapi

Justifiable, yes.

Moral, no.

But morality has no place in affairs of state.

---

That's untrue, the reality of a situation has nothing to do with the corresponding duty of the people involved in such situation. Justification has always a moral basis, it cannot be technically justified as that will lead to justify anything.

That's true.

But focusing on the moral duty of the state to protect its citizens above all else, in some situations, where a pre-emptive strike can prevent needless death and suffering of said citizens, such a strike can be justified.

I by no means supported the attack on Iraq, btw ~;)

I probably will have an unfavorable response to this post but rather then make something up I rather be honest about what I think.

I believe that preemptive war is not only the proper course but is a necessary condition to deter the need for preemption in the first place. Its clear to me that notion of someone attacking another is enough to keep most beligerents at bay.

The danger of not being a proponent of preemptive war lays in the romantic notion that your moral and ethical values are shared universally. What might be justification of pity for you, might be justification for stoning someone somewhere else.

does that mean I propose to wage war against those who dont share my values? No, but it does propose the notion that I can and will should I need to. Preemption suggests a claim to something, be it land, principal you pick, the key to the equation is the valuation you place on the item in question.

Sadly current preemptive wars have been based on notions that are not universally accepted as truths and thus thier failure assured from the onset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lancelot

I take it we have all been reading Michael Walzer's 'Just & Unjust Wars'?...

Walzer uses the British plan to attack Norway in WW2 as an example IIRC...this seems to me to be pretty much a reasonable example of a pre-emptive strike. ie- that by doing an unjust act (attack norway) you will be a) serving norwegian interests (whether they know it and/or actually appreciate it) in the long term which in turn leads to b) increases your chances of success in the conflict.

This of course can lead to 'slippery slope' situations where you can justify pretty much anything...

---

This is not a great example of a pre-emptive strike and certainly not an example of Just War.

I'm not really sure whether Pindar's opening statement actually has any meaning since the Just War theory has nothing to do with a war being justifiable before the event. Just War is about bringing justice through the sword. You cannot have pre-emptive justice, you cannot have a pre-emptive Just War.

Of course the theory of a Just War is essentially bollocks, serving as it does real politik rather than justice. It is carte blanche to wage war for just about any reason, so long as your can claim to be serving justice rather than, say, personal gain. Interestingly the early medieval Church struggled to overcome the idea of righting wrongs through warfare since it led to constant petty conflicts and feuds within Europe which weakened Christendom at a time when external threats lay all around.

hardly any wars can be considered just as the only benefit the small minority of people who hold power in a country at a given time, if anyone. for example, when U.S. leaders say, "we are attacking X in intrests of national security", whose security are they talking about? certainly not people living on main street. who is benefiting from these wars? you know the old saying, the rich start wars and the poor die in them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

You are correct. The "Six Days War" of 1967 featured an Israeli pre-emptive strike against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. Credible evidence suggests that the Israelis were correct in assuming that a coordinated attack by all three of these "arab" nations was iminent. Israeli air elements achieved an astounding level of destruction among the under-prepared arab air forces and Israeli ground forces made extremely sizeable gains in a very short period of time (Gaza, Sinai [sic?], West Bank, Golan Heights.

---

I tend to agree with a preemptive war if there is undeniable intelligence that another nation is actually going to attack and has arrayed its forces in such a manner. In the case of Iraq, there was no such hard evidence, despite the claims of the warhawks in the Bush cabinet. They only had some vague notion that the Saddam Hussein regime was a threat to the United States.
That Iraq might have been a threat to the region is arguable, but I didn't hear to many of its neighbors complaining too loudly at the UN.

No....we were not justified in this case of preemotive war IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Just War Theory comes out of the Christian Tradition. St. Augustine is typically seen as its source.

---

This is not correct. There are several examples of "just war theory" before Christianity, for instance in the early roman Appollo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appollo) cult, more than 500 years BC, in Cicero's work (from which St Augustine is said to have found inspiration for his work on bellum iustum), and in Sun Tzu's "Art of war" (BC), to mention a few. Christian tradition in general has played a minor role as promotor of "just war theory" since St Augustine (4th century CE), after which the main source of such theory was the Enlightenment philosophers. To call "just war theory" something that comes out of Christian tradition could be perceived by followers of other cultures and religions as both arrogant and offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotorgun

I tend to agree with a preemptive war if there is undeniable intelligence that another nation is actually going to attack and has arrayed its forces in such a manner.

---

I agree in principal but in application how do you cover the terrorist angle to the equation?

Lets take afghanistan for instance, now i think its fair to say that we knew pre 9/11 that the Taliban was harboring Bin laden and al queda elements/training facilities. I think its fair to say that we knew they wanted to attack us as well.

In this case would a preemptive war, in your opinion been justified? If not why?

Further down the trail here....

Iran is devloping nuclear capability which it claims is for energy needs. A valid claim for certain but the leadership of Iran, with the blessing of the supreme leader has advocated the destruction of Israel. Now the nuclear capability theory dosent limit Iran to using said capability for energy exclusively. Given proper development the capability could be used in weapon form, in this case does Israel have justification for a preemptive war? If not, why?

Im not trying to single you out, but using absolutes in the equation for someone attacking seems to me counter to human nature. In addition to that we have conditions in the world now where whole nations are not soely responsible for the actions of a few on thier soil, but they do allow them the ability to use the land for staging training (IE Afghanistan).

I think a valid argument can be made that preemption might dissuade future nations from acting, or allowing groups in thier country from acting hostily towards another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Odin

Iran is devloping nuclear capability which it claims is for energy needs. A valid claim for certain but the leadership of Iran, with the blessing of the supreme leader has advocated the destruction of Israel. Now the nuclear capability theory dosent limit Iran to using said capability for energy exclusively. Given proper development the capability could be used in weapon form, in this case does Israel have justification for a preemptive war? If not, why?

---

Yes Israel would have justification for a pre-emptive attack.

However that would not make it a Just War in the sense outlined in Pindar's post.

A Just War can be justified, but not every justified war is Just.

Preemptive war may be justifiable in some case, but the very definition of "preemptive" says it's a war you fight against some group you think is dangerous even though that group hasn't done anything wrong yet. Such a concept can be abused heavily if it were to be morally or legally accepted. You can simply say you consider a group a potential danger in the future, and attack/genocide them without any good excuse whatsoever, if it's accepted to attack some group that hasn't done anything wrong yet. Nobody can prove whether they're going to become evil or not in the future because nobody knows for sure what the future will bring.

On the other hand, there is one very clear case where preemptive war is justified, and that is against someone trying to gain enough power to be unstoppable for a very long time, such as the roman empire. It is wise to attack any empire that has an agenda of expansion and massive power, because gaining such power inevitably results in decadence of the leader, and abuse of his power, no matter how good the initial intentions may be (yes, many of the ideologies that eventually end up attempting something like world domination ultimately had their roots in some quite peaceful philosophy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Yes Israel would have justification for a pre-emptive attack.

However that would not make it a Just War in the sense outlined in Pindar's post.

A Just War can be justified, but not every justified war is Just.

---

Well what was outlined in Pindar's post rather runs the gambit of the epitomy of "having your cake and eating it too". At least in my opinion, it supposes that the ideal situation exsists in all cases but narrows the justification to 3 specific rules that must occur.

Its the 3rd rule thats the kicker, because

Quote:

---

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention

---

and thats the rub because "rightful intention" is subjective.

Keeping with the Iran theme, lets suppose for a moment that in thier view it is absolutely the right course to destroy israel. If thats the case dosent that nullify Israels right to preemption based on the 3rd premise of Pindar's theory?

How could one attack someone elses premise of rightful intention with thier own premise of rightful intention? The best, simplest way is to infer the devine in the equation and that is where logic ends and faith begins and that is not a universal truth.

Essentially, based on Pindar's outline, both Israel and Iran could make a just war, as to each, thier intent is rightous.

if a preemptive strike is justifiable on a macro scale, i.e. between states, then surely a preemptive strike should be justifiable on a micro scale. i.e between individuals. example, that state should then be allowed to arrest individuals who have not yet commited a crime, but who the gov't believes are intending to do so, even if the individuals don't know so yet, as for example in the movie minority report. or if i see some youths walking behind me on a deserted street at night, i can justifiy using preemptive violence on them because i might be targeted by them.

I think that with Irans rhetoric, I would support an Israeli pre-emptive strike.
However, we role-played this at Model U.N., and the end result was a MAD of the two parties.
The pre-emptive strike should dissuade the possible belligerent from returning te favor, or giving you time to assemble forces.

I think that saying 'They will attack me in 5 years, so I hit them now' is absurd. Proclaiming genocide to prevent your own genocide is also absurd.
Circumstances need to be evaluated, and then the attack can be considered just.
No 2 cases are alike.