This week I'd like to talk about another article that attacks the interdependence of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, so it looks like I'm not attacking some odd weirdo, so it doesn't seem like I'm using a strawman argument. To that end, I'd like to talk about Jeff McMahan and his "Proportionality in the Morality of War."
In this article, McMahan basically attacks several different "considerations" that he feels are propping up the interdependence of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, namely (1) epistemological considerations, (2) pragmatic considerations, and (3) institutional considerations (McMahan 703-704). Epistemological considerations basically say that one cannot expect soldiers to know the entire jus ad bellum justifications, and as such should merely concern themselves with jus in bello, and as such the two are interdependent (McMahan 703). This McMahan says does not work historically, and honestly comes across as more of an excuse than any sort of reasonable argument (McMahan 703). Pragmatic considerations say that, practically speaking, the only way a military can function is if soldiers assume jus ad bellum so that they can focus their entireties on jus in bello, which McMahan says only defends unjust wars, and doesn't work for just wars (why would one want to keep the rationale for a just war from one's soldiers?), and again, does not work historically (McMahan 704). Lastly, institutional considerations rely on social contract theory, and say that those institutions that declare war are "necessary to achieve important social goods" and as such we have prima facie reason to give our moral support to these institutions, an argument which as McMahan points out pales in the face of the fact that history is full of immoral institutions that gain no such social goods, and such an argument would seek to justify all of them in one fell swoop (McMahan 704).
McMahan's argument is a little more subtle than this, but what I have presented here gets the general gist of the matter, and I believe serves to show that Toner is not the only person asserting the Depenence Claim that I am studying in relation to Augustine's just war theory.
One might not want their soldiers worrying about the jus ad bellum for purely practical reasons. Regardless of whether or not the war is just the purpose of the soldier is to win the war by killing the enemy.
ReplyDeleteLets look at the justification for the war in Afghanistan. Al-qeada terrorists conducted the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The Taliban was in control of the entire country of Afghanistan. The military believed that the Taliban was harboring Al-qeada and that they were providing the infrastructure necessary to train fighters for combat. So, the United States Congress and the United Nations authorized President Bush 43 to use force to remove the Taliban from power and dismantle these camps.
I don't know of anyone who thinks that the war in Afghanistan was unjust. Yet, there must be strict rules for the soldiers fighting in this war. For example, the enemy dressed as civilians. Therefore, it is necessary to not fire on anyone unless you are being fired upon. This is designed to prevent soldiers from shooting who they think might be an enemy combatant but is in actuality an innocent bystander.
When in combat one needs to be focusing all of their energy on fighting. They do not need to be concerned with whether or not the war is justified as a whole. Is it right to dismantle these people's entire way of life under the Taliban regime? That doesn't matter when you're being shot at.
Of course, it is probably best to justify the wars to the soldiers. I would imagine that it would help with morale for soldiers to not have any doubts that they are doing the right thing. I don't think anyone wants to fight a blood for oil war, especially when it costs some of our blood.