Just War: Hehir, Walzer, and NY Times

Hugo Grotius, On the Law of War and Peace, stated: "The grounds of war are as numerous as those of judicial actions. For where the power of law ceases, there war begins." Grotius continues: "The justifiable causes generally assigned for war are three, defence, indemnity, and punishment."

Since World War II, the United States has not declared war once; however, we have fought wars in Korea (1950-1953), Vietnam (1964-1972), Iraq (1990-1991). Bosnia (1995), Kosovo (1999), Afghanistan (2001), and Iraq (2003-2004). With the exception of Vietnam, we have American combat troops in all these places. One could reasonably argue none of these wars satisfied Grotius' "just" war criteria. And none of these wars were "absolutely necessary."

In Korea, we killed an estimated 1.9 million Koreans and Chinese, while we lost 33,000 American troops. In Vietnam, we killed an estimated 1.5 million North Vietnamese, while we lost 58,000 American troops. Is it any wonder why so many in the world question our judgment and our reason when we go to war?

Rev. Byran Hehir and Professor Michael Walzer, members of the Pew/Brookings group studying "religion in foreign affairs," claim we should only become involved in "just" or "wars that are absolutely necessary." The NY Times shares their view of war.

September 12th, the NY Times, "Preventive War: A Failed Doctrine,"told us:

"Before the Iraq fiasco, American leaders rightly viewed war as a last resort, appropriate only when the nation's vital interests were actively threatened and reasonable diplomatic efforts had been exhausted."

In theory, no one should reasonably object to the formulation of a "just" war by Hehir, Walzer, or the Times. However, we know Professor Walzer couldn't "just sit and watch" regarding ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, nor could Walzer "abandon the principle of nonintervention" he had to "honor its exceptions" and advocate our military involvement in Bosnia.

Rev. Hehir has been equally inconsistent in defining a "just" war. As part of Pew/Brookings group, Hehir tells us Operation Iraqi Freedom is an unjust war. However, in May 1999, Hehir told us:

"My support of Kosovo as just cause is part of a larger argument, which calls for recasting the moral-legal-political calculus of policy in the direction of justifying some interventions for humanitarian reasons."

Excuse me, Gentlemen, if you could justify our military involvement in Kosovo and Bosnia as "just" wars, it defies common sense to tell us Operation Iraqi Freedom is an unjust war. Are we to believe the slaughter of half-million Iraqis by a murderous tyrant is of less importance than the thousands that were "cleansed" in the Balkans by another murderous tyrant?

Hehir spoke of wars as "absolutely necessary." David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, taught us a cause is always necessary, but necessity "exists only in the mind." In human affairs, our wars are always a matter of choice.

Even from the undisputed right of self-defense or self-preservation, contained within the Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, it does not follow that war is ever "absolutely necessary," as Hehir would have us believe. It may be prudent, wise, noble, courageous, or foolhardy to fight, but war is always a choice we make.

Beyond dispute, Hehir and Walzer are unprincipled hypocrits of the finest kind.