I don't mean this as an attempt to justify US or Israeli action but I have a Just War question as it applies to Iran.
It appears that Iran has no hope of winning and by continuing to resist they are allowing death and destruction they could avoid by agreeing to peace. Even though they were not the aggressor is it true that they are in the wrong according to Just War theory?
Unfortunately, I suspect that the answer is quite complicated, primarily by the question of "what constitutes 'a win'?" They have no prospect of overcoming the US forces within the US. They have no plausible hope of a successful battlefield where they meet the US forces in battle in Iran and win. They cannot plausibly project a clear situation in the near future where the US caves in and ceases to make demands at a negotiation table.
On the other hand, like in Iraq, they may have plausible hope of ongoing insurrection and resistance in asymmetrical warfare, guerilla warfare, and outright terrorism. They may hope for a protracted period of occupation where they push the cost of occupation ever higher, and eventually get a weak president with a weak Congress willing to depart under any terms at all, even dishonorably and at great (unnecessary) cost to the US - like Biden fleeing Afghanistan with his empty scrotum between his legs.
If they were to undertake this level of difficulty and long-range planning on the basis of a true religious spirit and in service of the true religion (like the Maccabees did) this would appear to be just. Of course, doing it on the basis of their own power mongering and a false religion compounds the difficulty of the analysis. But generally, since under just war theory it is only ever possible that ONE side is justly entering into the war, but it is possible that BOTH are unjustly going to war, we can infer that they are unjustly extending the war even if also the US is unjust. In particular, since they could end the war by giving up unjust objectives of using violence to make other nations kneel to (their version of) Islam, a false religion, yes, their refusal to yield is unjust.
Thanks, Ed. Your stuff, as well as the Pope's and some others' comments, has really helped me see this conflict through a more Catholic perspective. I really appreciate it.
I would say that attacks of civilian populations oftentimes is simply a necessity of war. It can be effective, because it demoralizes the enemy, who has nothing left fighting for. Sometimes, and certainly in Gaza, the enemy hides under schools, kindergartens, hospitals, &c, and intends its own children to get slaughtered in the fight for the sake of thus making a big spectacle in the press.
For Israel the present wars are a matter of win or die and in that situation anything goes. No nation is ever obligated to commit suicide, and certainly not Israel.
As to the US-Iran war, Iran has been at warfare with the US since the Ayatollahs seized power. They have built a network of terror all over the planet and deserve to be destroyed, especially since their development of long range missiles (ICBMs) capable for nuclear warheads. This is vital US interest and cannot be neglected.
There are other elements I agree with. I don't think that the US necessarily has the backing of divine providence with this war against Iran, but I don't think in this terminology. To me it is all a matter of power and interests, that's the way of the world and nobody can do anything about it. Who are your friends in world politics? Those who help you, or whose interests are aligned. Who are your enemies? Those who work against you. That's all and what to do is just help your friends and harm your enemies in order to continue your own existence. Why all the moral fuss? It doesn't apply to international relations. If you apply morality international politics, you are dead before the next day.
A well-aimed diatribe, Professor Feser. Who is White? @Tony: at this point in public discourse, I don't think cracks about Biden's scrotum are helpful.
Dr. Feser is a fine philosopher, but his political commentary is largely abysmal. He should leave just war theory to the experts: James Turner Johnson, George Weigel, Nigel Biggar…
In my experience, people who make this sort of comment almost never offer any specifics or reasoned responses to my claims or arguments. It amounts to mere pouting and foot-stomping that I don't agree with their particular political views.
I don't mean this as an attempt to justify US or Israeli action but I have a Just War question as it applies to Iran.
ReplyDeleteIt appears that Iran has no hope of winning and by continuing to resist they are allowing death and destruction they could avoid by agreeing to peace. Even though they were not the aggressor is it true that they are in the wrong according to Just War theory?
Unfortunately, I suspect that the answer is quite complicated, primarily by the question of "what constitutes 'a win'?" They have no prospect of overcoming the US forces within the US. They have no plausible hope of a successful battlefield where they meet the US forces in battle in Iran and win. They cannot plausibly project a clear situation in the near future where the US caves in and ceases to make demands at a negotiation table.
DeleteOn the other hand, like in Iraq, they may have plausible hope of ongoing insurrection and resistance in asymmetrical warfare, guerilla warfare, and outright terrorism. They may hope for a protracted period of occupation where they push the cost of occupation ever higher, and eventually get a weak president with a weak Congress willing to depart under any terms at all, even dishonorably and at great (unnecessary) cost to the US - like Biden fleeing Afghanistan with his empty scrotum between his legs.
If they were to undertake this level of difficulty and long-range planning on the basis of a true religious spirit and in service of the true religion (like the Maccabees did) this would appear to be just. Of course, doing it on the basis of their own power mongering and a false religion compounds the difficulty of the analysis. But generally, since under just war theory it is only ever possible that ONE side is justly entering into the war, but it is possible that BOTH are unjustly going to war, we can infer that they are unjustly extending the war even if also the US is unjust. In particular, since they could end the war by giving up unjust objectives of using violence to make other nations kneel to (their version of) Islam, a false religion, yes, their refusal to yield is unjust.
Thanks, Ed. Your stuff, as well as the Pope's and some others' comments, has really helped me see this conflict through a more Catholic perspective. I really appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteI would say that attacks of civilian populations oftentimes is simply a necessity of war. It can be effective, because it demoralizes the enemy, who has nothing left fighting for. Sometimes, and certainly in Gaza, the enemy hides under schools, kindergartens, hospitals, &c, and intends its own children to get slaughtered in the fight for the sake of thus making a big spectacle in the press.
ReplyDeleteFor Israel the present wars are a matter of win or die and in that situation anything goes. No nation is ever obligated to commit suicide, and certainly not Israel.
As to the US-Iran war, Iran has been at warfare with the US since the Ayatollahs seized power. They have built a network of terror all over the planet and deserve to be destroyed, especially since their development of long range missiles (ICBMs) capable for nuclear warheads. This is vital US interest and cannot be neglected.
There are other elements I agree with. I don't think that the US necessarily has the backing of divine providence with this war against Iran, but I don't think in this terminology. To me it is all a matter of power and interests, that's the way of the world and nobody can do anything about it. Who are your friends in world politics? Those who help you, or whose interests are aligned. Who are your enemies? Those who work against you. That's all and what to do is just help your friends and harm your enemies in order to continue your own existence. Why all the moral fuss? It doesn't apply to international relations. If you apply morality international politics, you are dead before the next day.
A well-aimed diatribe, Professor Feser.
ReplyDeleteWho is White?
@Tony: at this point in public discourse, I don't think cracks about Biden's scrotum are helpful.
Dr. Feser is a fine philosopher, but his political commentary is largely abysmal. He should leave just war theory to the experts: James Turner Johnson, George Weigel, Nigel Biggar…
ReplyDeleteIn my experience, people who make this sort of comment almost never offer any specifics or reasoned responses to my claims or arguments. It amounts to mere pouting and foot-stomping that I don't agree with their particular political views.
Delete