Some Comments on Syria and the Just War Theory

 I got more response to the Just War Theory post than to any other post so far.  Here are just a few comments....  This is a longer post than I normally make, but read as much or little as you want.  Good thoughts here.  There are several others I may post later that give good contextual and historical background.

           From Earl Martin,  Harrisonburg, Virginia

Jerry,

Interesting that you went and explored "just war" theory. I must admit that as one who has generally felt I would be terribly hard-pressed to take the life of another human, I have not always felt "just war theory" is adequate for me. But even taking "just war" guidelines in this case, I personally think it would be very difficult to justify military intervention in Syria. I'm wondering how likely it would be that US intervention would end up killing fewer than the reported 1,429 killed in the gas attacks. So this raises questions for me on the "proportionality" leg of "just war arguments."

And given the likely response of Syrian to respond to US attacks by threatening further attacks against US and Israeli interests in the region, it is far from clear that the likelihood of success is present, another just war tenet.

            From Bill Herod in Cambodia

I have thought about your comments regarding ''just war.'' I was never a fan of the doctrine and I certainly don't see how the concept can be applied to modern warfare.
What would constitute ''success''? Would that be determined by the post-strike ''functional damage assessments'' or by the consequences of passions inflamed across the region and beyond for years to come? Many American veterans of our war against Viet-Nam claim that the US never lost a battle there. In part that was because the US decided what constituted a ''battle'' as well as how to define ''winning'' or ''losing.''
Though I have long admired President Obama and have generally been proud to have him as ''my president,'' I do not understand and I do not support his position on Syria (or Afghanistan or drones). 

We Americans have global responsibilities and global obligations, but primary among those is to act as a partner in the community of nations, not as an imperious enforcer. The situation in the Middle East in general, and Syria in particular, is complicated beyond belief, but U.S. air strikes would not make the multifaceted conflicts any easier to resolve. Indeed, they would be certain to embolden adversaries, increase hostilities, generate even more refugees, and complicate the search for real and lasting solutions.

As A. J. Muste said, ''There is no way to peace. Peace is the way.'''

            From Maurice Bryne,

Professor Bill:   Thanks for your observant and wise thoughts.

A very simple outline of the bellum Justus below is from about 788 years ago (which was still very much on the curriculum of the Roman Catholic Major Seminary which I studied in Latin between 1963- 1967) is based upon European cosmology that is at least that old. Of course, that Is why I worked in Viet Nam with the Mennonites.

The only positive things that seem to be appearing today is the CEO of the USA did not do what almost every other one has done in exercising the “war powers” and it forcing a public and Congressional discussion of the basic issues (questions you raise below). My experience with Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. and Resurrection City taught me that human rights and justice cannot just be restricted to our American sisters and brothers.

What is war good for?

            From Don Tubesing, Madison, Wisconsin

I, too, have been thinking and listening.

At the moment I have serious questions about the US doing anything without the UN....

the situation is horrible. the suffering immense.....but/and

 What will be the point? and what is the goal of our intervention? to shame them? to scare them? to destroy them? GOOD LUCK.....remember George Bush II thought it would be 3 months preparation and 10 days fighting to victory, and then all the people would come out and cheer for us....for giving them freedom...alas, it is never that simple, and 12 years down the road the situation is no better.

And what will we do when they retaliate against us? Then we will really get fired up for war. rally the troops and show them we are boss cause they can't do this to us. Now we will be in an angry retaliation "just" war.

My thoughts move toward bombing all the companies in the world that make and supply weapons of any kind (including our own companies) -- and who market these weapons heavily to all sides, benefiting when they are used and more are needed.. If there were no weapons beyond clubs and stones, fewer people would suffer.......

        

     Richard Fuller from Vietnam

The Catholic Church used the "just war" theory to justify the Viet Nam War. I say no to those who can distinguish aside from a nation protecting itself from attack, something also stretched to mean anticipatory attacks in this day and age. The area is murky and needs more input from many sides for me to decide when war might be just. So far, other than WWII, which appears to have had support from many oppressed Europeans to end Germany's reign, I have yet to see another that warrants US intervention. 

A good example was Tanzania's President Nyerere getting rid of Idi Amin in Uganda. It was popularly received around the world. Another good example, but mired in cold-war politics was Viet Nam's justified intervention against the Khmer Rouge, who with the cooperation of the US, China and Thailand at the time, attacked VN while China did the same. Viet Nam repulsed all the attacks, but how many civilians suffered and how much money had to be spent on this? Ba Chuc Village in Tri Ton district has a museum that records what happened there for 11 horrible days of Khmer Rouge ruthlessness in April 1978. But the US called Viet Nam an aggressor and forced it out of Cambodia but the job got done by VN. The Khmer Rouge were ousted and their sympathizer, the current president for life, apparently, was a compromise that the UN and the world can seemingly live with.

Since Arab people are involved, both Muslim sects and minority Christians, I think it is up to the Arab world to decide and to take action if needed. Turkey is a leader in that area, respected for standing up to the US and its ally.

            From Janis Hansen, Twin Bridges, Montana

If we don't do anything, there will be more gassing, right? Is that enough? But looking on these points you sent, "reasonable outcome of success" is very troubling. What would success look like? And what would be the next kind of warfare invented that could be devastating?  

            From Linda Dorrington, Sheridan, Montana

It is sad that a life that is ended by a bullet or a bomb has less value
than one that is ended by poison gas. Until both sides can sit down at
a table and come to some kind of an agreement a million bombs will not stop
a thing.  It seems the lessons of history would prove something.
Catholics around the world are fasting and praying today for
peace....please join us.

            

            From Bret Aaker,  Albuquerque, New Mexico

I do not think we should be entering into any military engagement. The information and evidence is not clear. There certainly are some awful images being broadcast, however, it is still not clear who is responsible. Is a military strike going to change anything there? What are the next steps if we do bomb them? It is such a horrible mess and its so sad to know that humans can behave so badly. I think about that bumper sticker that I read once "Who would Jesus bomb?" I think no one...

           

            From Brynnie Rowberg, Northfield, Minnesota

What an agonizing situation! I opposed and let my congress people know it (in spades) both the Iraq and Afghan wars. I was opposed to but still conflicted over the Vietnam War. Having served in Vietnam 1956-58, talked to Frenchmen and Germans (Foreign Legion) who had been in Dien Bien Phu I was certain that we faced disaster. Still, having served in Communist Czechoslovakia 1950-52, I had no illusions about Communists everywhere, and was sick when I saw demonstrators in Washington carrying placards praising "Uncle Ho".

What to do in and about Syria? The NY Times carried a "shame them" article, too, but I think shame should have been applied years ago when Bashar Assad's dreadful father had 35,000 (I think) people killed in another Syrian city; I think it was Homs. And that wasn't even civil war, as this is. It was a horrible, intentional act.

One moment I think there should be missile strikes, the next moment I don't. Am only glad that the decision isn't mine to make. What happens after the missile strike? Does anyone have any idea that might lead to a resolution of the situation? All those warring groups who hate each other, and get along only under an iron hand (like the late Yugoslavia under Tito), who can persuade them to stop murdering each other?

As for the refugees, one's heart breaks to see and hear about them. I give to the American Refugee Committee (based in Minneapolis) which does a good job with relatively modest funds. But it seems clear that they can't go back to Syria. Where, in this crowded world? I remember the DP camps after World War II, but in those days there were welcoming, un-crowded countries: the US, Canada, Australia, but welcomes are no longer assured and the rest of the world is even more over-crowded. And, particularly in the Middle East, the next wars may be over water.

Enough of this -