Is War Ever an Answer?

Presidential candidates would do well to consider criteria in potential conflict
KRISTIN CHRISTMAN, originally published by Albany Times Union

It’s swell that presidential candidates assert they wouldn’t have invaded Iraq had they been president in 2003 with the information they have now.

But candidates should display not only hindsight but foresight: How will they react to future unverified information about foreign threats? Why would war even be an option?
It’s hard to imagine, much less recall, a war that satisfies traditional or updated requirements of a “Just War”. Many consider the phrase an oxymoron. Yet if war is not just, how can it advance humankind?
One traditional Just War requirement is noble intention. But it’s easy to hide behind one noble goal as a cloaking pretense for war. To remove loopholes from Just War criteria, let’s also require the absence of ignoble intentions. After all, while ignoble intentions may require war, noble goals likely may not.
Which presidential candidates — and not just Democrats and Republicans but Greens and others — could ensure that weapons, oil, and construction corporations will not profit from war? That war will not be pushed to secure pipelines, military bases, and private military contracts? That Holy War will not be successfully peddled by Christian and Jewish extremists eager to jump-start Armageddon?
A second ignored requirement of Just War is that non-combatants be spared from harm.
How do candidates plan to meet this standard? Doesn’t the massive killing power of modern weapons render them unable to discriminate between combatants, non-combatants, innocent, and guilty?
On what basis do candidates believe guilt should be determined? Is an Iraqi guilty if he raises a gun when fearful of an American soldier invading his home? Or is the American guilty? If American serial killers receive trials, why are foreigners obliterated?
A third requirement is likelihood of success in achieving noble goals, including peace, love, joy, trust, health, and justice. But how can war nurture any of these when communities are pulverized, violence is role-modeled, and underlying causes of conflict are ignored?
Consider 9/11. Terrorists are not homogeneous, and their motivations range from aggressive to defensive. Motivations include sadism, low empathy, domination preoccupations, black-and-white thinking, underdog biases, hostile interpretations of Islam, boredom, and beliefs in killing’s usefulness.
They include resentment over Western hatred, anti-Muslim prejudice, anti-Islamist repression, foreign political interference, Westernization, secularism, urbanization, social alienation, unemployment, and capitalism’s callousness towards poverty.
And they include compassionate rage over suffering from Israeli cruelty towards Palestinians, the Persian Gulf War and sanctions, U.S. invasions, U.S. military bases abroad, genuine fear of Western-Zionist crusading domination, and baseless arrests, torture, and execution of thousands under dictators, often financed and armed by the U.S.
Candidates: Which motivations were remedied by U.S. violence in the Mideast? Which were aggravated?
A fourth criterion is that benefits from war outweigh costs. Will candidates include the costs to the troops for suicide, homicide, injury, PTSD, drugs, and domestic abuse? The costs for their long-term care? The costs to fund a war and forego bridge and railroad repair, food and water inspection, hiring nurses and teachers, subsidizing solar energy, natural disaster preparation, and tax reduction? The costs suffered by enemies, or don’t they matter?
Updated Just War criteria should require that war’s benefit/cost ratio is not only positive, but is greater than the ratio of any other combination of alternatives, including dialogue, cooperative problem-solving, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Which candidates will make these calculations?
Updated criteria should require war to adhere to a Clean Air, Water, and Land Act in War and to protect non-human species’ lives and habitats. Does war have some divine right to contaminate Earth and unleash all that is negative?
And energy criteria? If civilians can’t use traditional light bulbs because they waste energy by emitting more heat than light, why can presidents squander energy on weapons that emit only destruction?
Which candidates will place caps on fuel usage in war? Who will ensure war isn’t fought for wealth and oil to fund and fuel future wars for wealth and oil?
A final neglected Just War criterion: War can be used only as a last resort. 21st century candidates must describe the spectrum of non-violent solutions they’ll pursue. Will options surpass the hostile mantra of sanctions, asset freezes, political isolation, and weapons sales? Will candidates actually match roots of violence with practical solutions? Will they seek advice from experts on peace rather than war?
ISIS atrocities are not a problem to ISIS, nuclear weapon ownership isn’t a problem to North Korea and Israel, and terrorism isn’t a problem for terrorists. For them, these are solutions to other problems. For the U.S., revitalizing nuclear arsenals, invading nations, torturing prisoners, and collecting phone data aren’t problems: They’re solutions to other problems.
Who will ask: What are these problems? How can we resolve them kindly and cooperatively?
Problems provoking violence are not excuses for violence, but they are solid topics for cooperative, problem-solving dialogue. So where’s the dialogue? Where’s that precious freedom of speech when we need it? Or is it reserved for insulting prophets?
Compare American reactions to the Mideast and to Ferguson, Mo. Are police and communities requesting weapons for Ferguson? Or are they calling for better relations based upon understanding and caring? For body cameras, de-militarized police, restraint in the use of force, improved training, fair trials, economic and social help, prejudice reduction, friendship, and dialogue?
Is that approach too good for the international community?
Kristin Christman is author of The Taxonomy of Peace and “Mother’s Day.”<--break->

4 Responses

  1. May I suggest that no State should be ‘marrying’ people per se’ and that Kentucky could initiate a change in policy that would eliminate messy divorces, loosely contrive, quasi-religious contracts that do little to further the Family? A much better practice is to indulge the relationship with a Wedding as a matter of religion and taste; but to confirm it with a Domestic Partnership of whatever description the parties see fit? The necessary spelling out of terms might give the participants pause, allow for dissolution; prevent harm. A good change. There’s no Right Way to do the Wrong Thing; and State marriages are vestigial. Go ahead, commit to one another; just make it really legal. Go Kentucky!

  2. I feel WWII was last just war. Germans were provoked by onerous settlement to WWI, but still out of line. With today’s level of destructiveness of weapons, no war can be just any more. We need to hire our weapons makers to make equipment for a war on catastrophic climate change instead: harden our grid against electromagnetic pulse and weather-related disaster and also set about harnessing renewable energy for electric power: wind, solar, geothermal, and whatever else we can harness. We also need lots of energy storage to integrate wind and solar into grid.

    1. As an amateur historian, my research indicates that WW II at least in Europe could have been avoided completely. It appears that there was a group of international (including some Americans) millionaires and billionaires that funded the Nazi Party’s rise to power and was pushing for war. There is also evidence they may have had some influence on Japan’s decision to militarize and invade China and other parts of Asia before their attack on Pearl Harbor. Why? Massive profits from arms manufacturing and sales. Many of these wealthy men also had fascist tendencies including the ones who took part in the attempted coup against FDR int he 1930’s. They learned from the previous war of the money that could be made and the power it could lead to. This is why the U.S. “embraced” the military industrial complex and essentially landed itself in a perpetual state of war even when it wasn’t actively engaged in a major conflict like WW II. We were lied in the Vietnam War just as we were lied into Iraq. All for massive profits for a select few. Yes, the Nazis needed to be removed but again it could have been prevented.

  3. The answer is a resounding no 13 times. See Appenix A of my book, America’s Oldest Professions: Warring and Spying

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Articles

Our Theory of Change

How To End War

Move for Peace Challenge
Antiwar Events
Help Us Grow

Small Donors Keep Us Going

If you select to make a recurring contribution of at least $15 per month, you may select a thank-you gift. We thank our recurring donors on our website.

This is your chance to reimagine a world beyond war
WBW Shop
Translate To Any Language