Is There Such Thing as a "Just War"?

This question is one that is not answered easily. Even though I feel that war is one of the most horrendous and inhumane acts that we engage in, it still seems to be a difficult question to answer. I do not believe that I have a monopoly of truth, nor should anyone else in this world.

Knowing this, I pose to you as a reader to consider the points that I cover concerning a "just war"; whether you agree, disagree, or plausibly believe there is more to the question than I explore.

This question needs to be understood if we are to survive as a species, especially knowing war's destructive consequences. If we want to understand the present and what the possible consequences of our actions are, we must understand the past, the actions that countries make, and their consequences. This is a question that we should explore as a community if we are interested in making this world a better place. If you feel inclined to respond to this article, I would be more than happy to hear your thoughts.

What does it mean to fight a "just war"? It seems that this means that the reasons for war, the means, and the ends of the war bring about a better situation for the people of the world.

First let us look at the reasons for war. It is most certainly true that any war that has been fought was professed to have some "just cause." A look at our own suggests there has not been one war fought for professed unjust reasons. World War II was supposedly fought to stop fascism, Vietnam was fought with the professed intent of containing communist aggression, the Gulf War is thought to have been fought to stop Saddam's aggression and inhumanity, and so on. Indeed it would seem impossible for the leaders of a nation to declare war if they tell the people there is no just reason.

Even in Nazi Germany, the reasons for war were supposedly to protect the Germans from communism throughout Europe. Herman Wilhelm Goring, a military official under Hitler, said, "Naturally the common people don't want war: neither in Russia nor England nor Germany for that matter. That is understood but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Hitler was not telling the people that he sought military and economic domination of the world. The people thought that the war Hitler commenced was for a "just cause." Since Hitler and the German people (although not all of them) considered the reasons for war "just," did that make it a "just war"? Are his actions: invading and occupying sovereign nations, bombing Britain and France, and committing genocide considered "just" because they were professed under a "just cause"? It seems that the professed reasons for going to war are not necessarily a determining factor in deciding whether a war is "just." We can add plenty of examples.

Consider the recent war against Afghanistan. The professed reasons were considered "just": reducing the threat of terrorism, and bringing the perpetrators of a crime to justice (just causes indeed). But have those goals been accomplished? Do we feel safer after the war in Afghanistan?

We still have orange, yellow, and whatever color alerts, and the government says we are still not safe. There are now policemen patrolling the streets of New York anticipating terrorist attacks. The government recommends that we should buy duct tape and other goods to protect ourselves from a chemical attack. It sounds much like the words of other leaders who wanted to scare the population into obedience.

Our fears are still here, and we still have not found Bin Laden. We never brought any evidence showing that he was directly involved (as a lawful state should do), and in the process starved millions of Afghans and killed thousands more under our bombs.

In reality, we committed terrorism and most likely increased the possibility of a future attack. The cycle of violence does not end through committing more violence. These being just a few examples seem to show that if a war is supposedly for a "just cause" it does not always make it a "just war".

So if the reasons for war are not legitimate, what about the means of the "just war"? It seems that one example of a "just war" is the U.S. involvement in World War II. Certainly, if any war would stand as "just," World War II would be the ultimate test.

In World War II, the means in which we fought Hitler were supposed to bring about a more just world. However, the actions that we took in the war were far from just. We need not invent examples to show atrocities that U.S. and Britain committed in the name of fighting fascism.

We can look at the Allied bombings of German cities such as Cologne, Essen, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and Dresden. In the firebombing and total destruction of Dresden alone, we killed upwards of 100,000 German people.

Is that the means that are taken in a "just war"? One could argue that it was necessary that we bomb German cities in this manner because Germany was an imperialist force and had to be stopped.

However, if we draw parallels to today, one can obviously see that the U.S. is now the imperial power in the world. The U.S. has been responsible for installing puppet regimes all over the world, violating international law, setting up military bases in hundreds of countries, and murdering millions of people.

If one declared war on the U.S. to stop it from its imperialist endeavors, should they bomb New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles as a means of stopping U.S. aggression? This certainly would not be a "just war," but terrorism on a grand scale.

Furthermore, it would not work to stop the imperialism and terrorism committed by the superpower. This hypothetical situation does not seem much different from that of the fire bombing of Dresden and Tokyo.

We can look at other examples of World War II, like the dropping nuclear bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima. The United States Bombing Strategic Bombing Survey reported, "Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts...Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." This was stated after the bomb had been dropped, but was already known by many in the U.S. government when the bombs were dropped.

Howard Zinn, a historian and World War II veteran, writes: "In the summer of 1966 my wife and I were invited to an international gathering on Hiroshima to commemorate the dropping of the bomb and to dedicate ourselves to a world free of warfare...some of us were invited to a house in Hiroshima that had been established as a center for victims of the bomb...We were asked to speak to the group...I stood up and felt that I must get something off my conscience. I wanted to say that I had been an air force bombardier in Europe, and that I was ashamed of what I had done...I never got the words out, because as I started to speak I looked out at the Japanese men and women sitting on the floor in front of me, people with horribly burned faces, people with no eyes in their sockets, without arms, or without legs, but all quietly waiting for me to speak. I choked on my words, could not say anything for a moment, fighting for control, finally managed to thank them for inviting me and sat down."

How can a "just war" be fought when innocent civilians are the main victims? Does this meet the ends that we want? Does tyranny stop through using violence on a massive scale? We need to find other ways to deal with tyranny and oppression other than committing acts that we would not want upon ourselves.

In war, there will ultimately be civilians that are maimed, displaced, and murdered in mass. It has been said that the death toll in the 20th century due to war is 10 civilians to one conscripted soldier. Do we not realize that if we use war as a means to solve our problems, it will only multiply them? More will be killed and more will be angered.

The cycle of violence will continue until we stride for the principles of justice instead of war. Is there such thing as a "just war"? It's hard to say yes when looking at the consequences.