Just War Theory

[Dutch Uncle]

This message board has a long and lurid history of posters relentlessly defending the Iraq invasion, beating the war drums against Iran, and demanding that we continue a military commitment in Afghanistan.

To me the question is whether these posters consider any legitimate moral basis and ethical framework for the wars they desire. Or if war to them is strictly an amoral, political calculation.

Invading Afghanistan was just but invading Iraq was not. Worse, by invading Iraq, Bush removed the assets necessary to end the war in Afghanistan and put them into Iraq thus prolonging the war in Afghanistan past the point of our presence being justified.

Except for Afghanistan, most post-Cold War wars should be international efforts. The problem, IMO, is that the US has been the biggest kid on the block for over 75 years and carried most of the cost in protecting Europe and the Pacific. If we just pulled out, it would leave a power vacuum.

The US and all trading nations have an interest in keeping the peace and keeping the trade routes open. The problem is that, except for the US, most nations have a very limited capability to be partners in maintaining the peace as opposed to simply being dependents upon the US.

One of the few things Trump did of which I approved was shaking up NATO although Trump's methods were akin to turning a bull loose in a china shop.

I'd like to see the US reduce our global presence in coordination with our allies as they ramp up their own militaries to take our place and work as true partners.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There are no ethics of warfare.

There is as outlined in the Geneva Convention treaties.

 

[Cypress]

Invading Afghanistan was just but invading Iraq was not. Worse, by invading Iraq, Bush removed the assets necessary to end the war in Afghanistan and put them into Iraq thus prolonging the war in Afghanistan past the point of our presence being justified.

Except for Afghanistan, most post-Cold War wars should be international efforts. The problem, IMO, is that the US has been the biggest kid on the block for over 75 years and carried most of the cost in protecting Europe and the Pacific. If we just pulled out, it would leave a power vacuum.

The US and all trading nations have an interest in keeping the peace and keeping the trade routes open. The problem is that, except for the US, most nations have a very limited capability to be partners in maintaining the peace as opposed to simply being dependents upon the US.

One of the few things Trump did of which I approved was shaking up NATO although Trump's methods were akin to turning a bull loose in a china shop.

I'd like to see the US reduce our global presence in coordination with our allies as they ramp up their own militaries to take our place and work as true partners.

One thing I liked about Poppy Bush the elder was he was an internationalist.

I think the NATO air campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo were consistent with just war ethics, because all diplomatic options were exhausted, and the scale of unabated ethnic cleansing was a shock to the moral conscience.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

One thing I liked about Poppy Bush the elder was he was an internationalist.

I think the NATO air campaigns in Bosnia and Kosovo were consistent with just war ethics, because all diplomatic options were exhausted, and the scale of unabated ethnic cleansing was a shock to the moral conscience.

Agreed on all points.

As for Bosnia; two thoughts come to mind.

First, there's a difference between a modern military and a peacekeeping force.

Second, Clinton, pandering to the Democrat far Left, was anti-military then, after shitting all over our men and women in uniform, gleefully sent them into harms' way in both Bosnia and Haiti.

As the world moves toward more peaceful coexistence, modern offensive militaries are converting to smaller, more specialized Rapid Deployment Forces (RDF's) rather than large conventional forces. These forces are short-term, mission-specific forces like the one that took down Osama bin Laden. They aren't occupation forces which is a peacekeeping mission.

IMO, ideally, under the UN, nations would provide more support and coordinate peacekeeping missions while individual nations retain their national self-defense forces and RDFs.

 

[Cypress]

Agreed on all points.

As for Bosnia; two thoughts come to mind.

First, there's a difference between a modern military and a peacekeeping force.

Second, Clinton, pandering to the Democrat far Left, was anti-military then, after shitting all over our men and women in uniform, gleefully sent them into harms' way in both Bosnia and Haiti.

As the world moves toward more peaceful coexistence, modern offensive militaries are converting to smaller, more specialized Rapid Deployment Forces (RDF's) rather than large conventional forces. These forces are short-term, mission-specific forces like the one that took down Osama bin Laden. They aren't occupation forces which is a peacekeeping mission.

IMO, ideally, under the UN, nations would provide more support and coordinate peacekeeping missions while individual nations retain their national self-defense forces and RDFs.

I do not think any American president gleefully puts soldiers in harrms way. But I agree with the rest of your post.

US aerial operations in the Balkans and in the Kurdish no fly zones seemed justified to me from a humanitarian perspective, and the risk seemed acceptable because we did not commit to ground combat operations or conventional war.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I do not think any American president gleefully puts soldiers in harrms way. But I agree with the rest of your post.

US aerial operations in the Balkans and in the Kurdish no fly zones seemed justified to me from a humanitarian perspective, and the risk seemed acceptable because we did not commit to ground combat operations or conventional war.

Sure they do. Clinton didn't have to send in our troops. There as no US national security issue in Bosnia. It was all political and humanitarian therefore "provide for the common defense" did not apply. Do you think Bill wanted to send us into Rwanda too? I knew he did. The article below confirms it although Slick Willy sidesteps.

The problem at the time was that Clinton had already shot his wad in Bosnia under popular US pressure not to do so. Rwanda would have been bloody and Clinton was looking at both the midterms (when Newt took over) and his reelection odds.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/05/rwanda-revisited-genocide-united-states-state-department/
Former President Clinton said he never knew the extent of suffering during Rwanda's genocide. But America's diplomats on the ground knew exactly what was happening -- and they told Washington.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_War Bosnia War 1992-1995

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide Rwandan genocide 7APR-15JUL94 during the Rwandan Civil War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_United_States_elections

The 1994 United States elections were held on November 8, 1994. The elections occurred in the middle of Democratic President Bill Clinton's first term in office, and elected the members of 104th United States Congress. The elections have been described as the "Republican Revolution" because the Republican Party captured unified control of Congress for the first time since 1952. Republicans picked up eight seats in the Senate and won a net of 54 seats in the House of Representatives. Republicans also picked up a net of ten governorships and took control of many state legislative chambers.