Homework Help please: A Just War

My High School-aged daughter has to do a paper and give a 3-5 minute presentation about 'A Just War'. She can 'frame' this pretty much any way she wants to. 'A Just War' (for this assignment) is defined as following these 7 principals:

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/pol116/justwar.htm

She needs to cite an example(s) of when a just war was fought or 'What wars in the past were just'.

She went to the library and only found two books - 'The Just War' by Peter S. Temes and 'But was it Just? - Reflections on the Morality of the Persian Gulf War' by Elshtain, Hauerwas Nusseibeh, Walzer, and Weigel.

She's feeling a little (a lot) confused about how to do this report. Pretty big topic to be sure. She's asking me for advice, but frankly I'm feeling the same way as she is (confused about where to 'begin').

on edit: adding, we live in the heart of Republican country and she knows that she has the ability to affect the 'hearts and minds' of at least 30 people on this issue....so, she really wants to make this 'good'.

Any advice out there on how to 'frame' this or advice about 'what wars in the past were considered 'Just'? Thanks in advance for any help! :-)

But that's just a commie hippie pacifist nutjob talking. :)

But I wouldn't disagree either.

To say there is no such thing as a just war implies that WWII or the Civil War or the American Revolution were unjust. Is it unjust to fight for your freedom? Is it unjust to fight to end slavery? Is it unjust to fight to prevent world domination by insane racist murderers?

It may be necessary to to kill in order to prevent world domination by insane racist murderers, but never is it just.

And even if you want to use the posted criteria for it, I believe #7 was something along the lines of "don't target civillians." I think pretty much EVERYONE in WWII targeted civillians at one point or another.

on edit: made that first sentence a WHOLE lot clearer >_<

was definitely just.

We could care less about Europe's wars. As another poster on this thread mentioned, there was relatively little support for joining the war in Europe as opposed to focusing entirely upon the Pacific. Hitler could care less about the Americas, and in any event the war in Europe was won almost entirely by the Russians.

Just to take issue with your assertion that survival was the reason. I still don't think that makes it just to engage in mass murder. As I said above, necessary perhaps, but never just.

Do you think they would have stopped when they had conquered Europe, Asia, Africa and the Pacific?

BTW, remember Japan attacked us. Germany declared war on us AFTER we declared war on Japan.

How well do you think the Russians would have fared on their own? That is without a second front -- in Africa, Sicily, Italy and France? Or without aid from the West?

This is established fact. Unless you count a bunch of tiny island military bases in the Pacific, Japan could have cared less about American land. Hitler, meanwhile, was not bent on world domination as is often claimed. Yes, he wanted pretty much all of Europe and a fat chunk of Russia, but at no point did he entertain any ideas about WORLD conquest.

As for how well Russia would have fared without a second front and only the Lend-Lease program, they'd have fared just fine. The Russians had far more soldiers and under Stalin had no qualms about using human wave tactics, and it was WORKING. The Russians were pushing the Nazis back long before there was any second front (which pissed Stalin off to no end, as he was doing all the work).

Japan didn't want to conquer? That's why they had an invasion fleet heading to American soil? That's why they invaded the Aleutian Islands?

Again, imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were bent on conquering. When they were done with Asia and Europe, they would NOT have allowed America to be the one nation to oppose them.

The Russians had many soldiers, but they also gained time with the second front and lost opponents. Had the war lasted much longer, likely they would have faced a Germany armed with jets and nuclear weapons.

In short, they would have gotten their asses kicked without the West. Similarly, the West would have lost big time without Russia.

Africa was a second front from the very beginning of the war. Had Britain made peace, Germany would have been free to beat up on Russia and would have done so.

That's why they invaded the Aleutian Islands?
They invaded the Aleutians because we were trying to invade them. We had bases there. It's called strategy.

Had the war lasted much longer, likely they would have faced a Germany armed with jets and nuclear weapons.
Jets maybe, nuclear weapons NO. Hitler thought the program was a joke and sent most of his scientists working on it to the eastern front. Germany was nowhere NEAR developing nuclear weapons.

Africa was a second front from the very beginning of the war.
Yes, because Italy wanted in on the game and decided to invade British possessions in Africa. Considering that they haven't been successful at this since, oh, Carthage, Hitler had to bail them out.

Had Britain made peace, Germany would have been free to beat up on Russia and would have done so.
At no time was England interested in peace with Germany, and at no time did Hitler have any hope of fighting an amphibious invasion of England and a losing battle with Russia.


Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. It's become clear I'm not getting through to you, and I need to go cook lunch, so nyeah. :P

They were American territory.

We had bases in California and New Jersey too. Based on your comments, those Japanese who didn't want to conquer us would have invaded those places as well. You know, "strategy."

As for jets, no maybes about it. We faced them, they just didn't have enough to make a difference. Nuclear weapons are a toss up. Maybe yes, maybe no, but certainly a Germany that only had to fight on one front would have had vast resources to use against the Soviets.

England didn't have to be interested in "peace" with Germany. It did have to be interested in not being conquered. Had England sued for peace and left the war, Russia would have been sunk. And one of the reasons England stayed in the war was help from America.

As an aside, I think it's nyahh. At least that's how Snoopy always said it.

as a diversion.

The plan was to invade the Aleutians, the US fleet would go north and then the Japanese could take Midway. Might have worked if we hadn't cracked their code.

I know this doesn't address your main point, but might as well get the history right.

working on the atomic bomb. If they had developed it they would have attacked the United States without a doubt. Hitler wanted world domination, period. If he had done us in with the a-bomb, he would have gone after his allies, Japan, Italy, etc. He was evil personified.

He envisioned the us as a massive farm and forest land to be used by the master race. It's stated in quite a few history books.

and to observe the actions of 'insane racist murders' without intervening? Is it 'right' to do so? What is the realationship between 'just' and 'right'?

Throwing the idea of 'necessary' into the mix makes it even murkier. Here are dictionary.com's definitions of 'necessary', Webster is about the same -

1) Absolutely essential. See Synonyms at indispensable.

2) Needed to achieve a certain result or effect; requisite: the necessary tools.

3) a. Unavoidably determined by prior conditions or circumstances; inevitable,
b. Logically inevitable.

4) Required by obligation, compulsion, or convention: made the necessary apologies.

By which of those can it 'necessary' to become involved in a war against 'insane racist murders'?

I'm hungry, so I'm making this quick..

We didn't know that Germany was going about a Final Solution. Nobody did, until the Soviets and Americans started liberating concentration camps and finding the mass graves. World War II was only about genocide retroactively.

Going into the dictionary definitions bit, when I say necessary in this context it's generally "necessary for one's own survival." I personally believe that there is ALWAYS a nonviolent way to resolve an issue, though it generally goes overlooked...sometimes there's no time to sit around and think, that guy's coming at you with a gun blah blah blah etc. But I still don't think it's ever just to kill someone.

Okay, you people have kept me from my lunch long enough. XD

similar to what Bush is doing in the name of this country... and if continued will put EU at war with USA because we are illegally making war in IRAQ and murdering millions of people...

Civil war might be since it again was for rights for the whole.....

perhaps ones that truthfully do what is right for the whole ....not like rw christian who want to impose their view/ideology on others.

I want to say there is a 'goodness factor' or the true intent.

Majority of wars do not fit in that category.

Since the US didn't enter the war until AFTER Pearl Harbor was bombed, and even then 62% of Americans thought we should limit our actions to the Pacific Theater.

justified because of Hitler's insane mindset to take over the world (just like *, but that's another thread) and the death camps. We had to stop that imperialism. You can find a lot of info about the war and rationales for it if you just google "World War II justification". I'd also highly recommend "Don't Know Much About History" by Kenneth C. Davis and "Lies My Teacher Told Me" by James Loewen.

and the american civil war were the only two i can think of. maybe the korean war ...

Most people consider WWII a just war. I think it meets those criteria pretty well. Remind your daughter that most people in the world felt WWII began when Hitler invaded Poland, NOT at Pearl Harbor. That's our US-centric way of looking at it. BTW, we declared war on Japan after that, and rightly, I think. Then Germany declared war on us because Japan was their ally.

Aside from the Final Solution, which was one extremely important factor in justifying the war, remember, too, that Hitler was bombing London indiscriminately every night.

However, even in that war not everything done was right. Most people feel that the fire-bombing of Dresden was unnecessary, for example. You can probably think of other examples.

of the Final Solution?

I know of no credible historian today who argues that Roosevelt didn't know.

Huh, I've never seen one claim to that effect. Once we were in the war, yes, we reached a point where we knew something -- size and scope maybe not, but yes LATER in the war, FDR knew.

from what I have read about. Only thing was back then information didn't flow as quickly. So even if he did say have a notice, it might not have been enough to create an effective defense for a comming attack.

I meant "as well as" the Final Solution, not "instead of."

This has been saved in my reference section.

needs to read CC ADams' "The Best War Ever." This book dispels much of the mythology that has emerged about "the good war."

I would suggest, if she wants to argue for a "just war," she look at some of the Indian wars that were waged by American Indians because their lands were being taken by land hungry Euro colonists. In my mind, any war by the colonized against the colonizer is just. Well, not universally so, but in most cases.

What mythology of WWII do you claim was dispelled?

Does your book claim to dispel the attack on Pearl Harbor?

years that for some reason WWII was a "golden age" war. We didn't enter the war for altruistic reasons, because of Hitler; we entered because Pearl Harbor was attacked.

The war resulted in the US emerging as THE superpower, the Cold War, the Atomic/Nuclear Age, rife anti-communist McCarthyism, and other not-so-wonderful aspects of American history.

The war ended with the atomic bombing of civilian populations in Hiroshima and Nagisaki. People might argue that the first bomb was necessary, but was the second, considering three days was an awfully short time for Japan to capitulate, and even then, though they were ready, the only talking point was whether the emperor would remain on the throne as nothing more than a figurehead...and then you can look at the historiography on why Truman made the decision to drop the bomb. That's a whole other story.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagisaki were part of our actions in the Second World War. If you can find a way to defend bombing civilian populations as just, then go for it.

That's survival. However, we still wiped out two of the biggest threats to freedom the world has ever known.

If you agree the first bombing was needed, then the secon was as well because Japan hadn't decided to surrender after the first. If losing as entire city doesn't convince you in three full days, then you won't be convinced.

Japan had decided to capitulate. The only sticking point was whether the Emperor would remain on the throne AS A FIGUREHEAD ONLY.

Hey, if you feel you can justify bombing with the A-BOMB civilian populations, then there is no convincing you that such an action was unjust.

When you decide to surrender in a war, it's best to let the other guy know. You do that by the white flag and surrendering.

It was horrible that so many civilians and military died in a war started by Japanese and German and Italian aggression. Don't blame the nations that ended the war, blame those that started it.

Read the historiography on this war. Read about the final days before Truman decided to bomb the civilian Japanese populations. Read some of the things he said to Stalin BEFORE he did it.

But surrender is simple. The Japanese didn't surrender after the first bomb.

but wasn't Trumans decision to drop the bomb based on information he had about a possible invasion on mainland japan causing massive casulties on the US side if they went through with that?

TOGO staying on as a figure head was not full and total surrender, and that at the time was what the US demanded.

representation was the issue there

Any war fought against an unprovoked aggressor to defend a nation's people and sovereignty, no matter how hopeless the struggle may be, would be a just war, as well as any war fought to free a nation and its people's of outside rulership. Thus, I think that WWII, and probably the American and Russian Revolutions as well as the Scottish Rising of 1297 would be considered very just as they were fought for those reasons

I just can't agree with that.

That justifies it for me.

But historians are now arguing that it had more to do with a powerplay with Stalin than saving soldiers' lives. I am speaking theoretically, as far as how historians view this, considering all of the information, and considering that almost ALL of Truman's aids advised him AGAINST dropping the bomb. Again, Japan was ready to capitulate--the only point that was left to be resolved was whether the emperor would retain the throne as a figurehead.

Didn't Hiroshima prove the point?

would be that modern military technology is so devastating that no war can be just in the 21st century . . . just a thought . . .

that way she can compare a war with international support and one without, outlining the consequences of war without. (just vs. unjust war and the consequences of it.)

This will cause discomfort for the freeper/rwnuts as it is pitting conservative policy/strategy and its consequences/outcomes vs. neocon policy/strategy and its consequences/outcomes.

Personally, I think that there is a gray area between a just and an unjust war. The current Iraq War does not appear to fit in with the "just war doctrine" and the Holy Father fought it vigorously. However, the same attitude was not taken by the Vatican prior to Gulf War I.

I think that the sameholds true for Bosnia and Kosovo. This is why *'s argument over abuse of Iraqis doesn't hold water. It was not immediate but rather past and future.

Including the UN.

I'm a pacifist but the only way I can get my head around this is. . .

A just war is against an adversary who poses a "clear and present danger" (which Iraq clearly did not). . . or one who has invaded another country's sovereignty (which we clearly did in Iraq).

If she uses the phrases, "clear and present danger" and the Latin "casus belli"-that which causes or justifies war, it may help.

SEC. 2. (c)
The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.

http://www.cs.indiana.edu/statecraft/warpow.html

I tend to focus on the process:

1. Take those 7 principals as the definition of a just war.

2. Analyze the 7 principals into their key words and use a dictionary to define those words too in order to get at what the principals mean. It is also good at this point to go to a Thesaurus to get some synonyms and antonyms (look up their definitions too) to use in the body of the paper.

3. Pick an example, WWII is the most common one I've heard, but it might be more interesting to go way back in history and find something other people won't have in their papers. I was always impressed by anyone who did a little work to get more original content.

4. Once you've decided upon an example, take the definitions of key terms created in 2. and apply them to the example; evaluate and describe the example for how it is similar and/or different from what the key terms define.

5. Relate what you get out of 4. to the principals laid out in 1: again similarities and differences.

6. Form your conclusion.

P.S. It may be necessary early on to state somewhere something like, "Assuming there is something that could be called a "Just War", . . ." Because many people disagree strongly about whether there is or not. I tend to say "Not" because you always have issues, even when it is a matter of "self defense", as claimed of things like Pearl Harbor, about how it came to be that we were attacked in the first place. This means that I tend to think a war is "Just" when we are concretely attacked, EXCEPT that there are always valid questions about the kinds of deliberate GOVERNMENT activities that result in attack in the first place.

together with the foundation link in my previous reply, this link should help with the theoretical.

http://web.ask.com/web?q=what+is+a+just+war%3F&o=0&qsrc=0&askbutton.x=26&askbutton.y=15

especially for one so young
I suggest that you suggest
that she sit in a quiet place
and take notes on her own interpretation
of what 'just' would mean in relation to 'war'
i.e., under what conditions
would she personally consider a war to be 'just'?

she can inform herself after that

this would be a good exercise
because many of her peers
probably have what they think are justifiable views
regarding the current war
but have not really thought critically about
why they have the views they have

so, if she can do some homework
on what her own views are at the outset
and then challenge them with facts

it would help her peers see that
to express a view on a subject
one has the responsibility to first become informed
thereby having justification for 'owning' the view you express

so, the assignment can be one of
instructing her peers to question their own views

and about war, oh my, such a critical subject

Read this by Paul Fussell, a WWII combat veteran.
http://www.theatlantic.com/unbound/bookauth/battle/pfint.htm

Google Paul Fussell for more.

mythologized. Excellent suggestion, trof.

by a relatively new fellow DUer whose name escapes me now. He (?) posted a thread that got only a few replies.
I am forever in his debt, and told him so.

Death's Men, by Denis Winter. (It will bring tears to your eyes. The best book on WWI I have ever read.)

for somebody in high school or college, a seminary or a monastery; anybody who actually struggled with the concept finds it almost intractable. She could tell her class and her teacher that if any of them believe they know what a just war is they're either wrong or they should publish quickly so the rest of us can know.

a truly "just" war. i disagree, however, with some of the suggestions on this thread about what wars your daughter should use, especially the civil war. the civil war was NOT fought over human rights and slavery...it was fought (on the southern side) to protect and preserve their economic way of life that they viewed as indelibly threatened by lincoln, and fought (on the northern side) to preserve the union and prevent the breakup of the united states. only after the emanicpation proclimation a few years into the war did the rhetoric turn towards freeing the slaves, but even that was false, as the e.p. didn't really free any slaves at all (only those held in territories in rebellion, and obviously THEY weren't about to heed a proclimation from lincoln...)

anyway, as a former h.s. history teacher, i taught my students that wars are fought on their base level for one (or more) of three reasons (in no partiuclar order): money (power in included in this, as are resources), water, and religion. if you take any human conflict, you can distill the reasons for the conflict down to one or more of those three reasons.

if your daughter takes that into consideration while pondering the concept of "just war," that may assist her in coming to come conclusions (and perhaps win some "originality" points for her with the teacher...)

just my opinion...

I highly recommend it.

I don't think any war in the history of the United States has been just because they have all to one extent or another targeted civilians. Maybe the War of 1812 and the Mexican American War, please. Although I'm not sure the causes were just.

If she talks about major wars through history and which principles they met and which they didn't she will be following the assigment.

Another very unusual departure would be in her definition of war. True, the dictionary defines it as an armed conflict but there have been non-violent "wars" for civil rights, etc.

" . . . many people disagree strongly about whether there is or not. I tend to say "Not" because you always have issues, even when it is a matter of "self defense", as claimed of things like Pearl Harbor . . . "

The Palestinians and some others say that questions also exist about what caused 9/11.

At minimum I would say I wonder about complaining against pre-emptive attacks like 9/11 when we engage in them ourselves.

Although he lead an ill-fated insurrection against American expansionism, he fought for just causes. If your not familiar with his life or the history surrounding him, it would make interesting research.

is essentially the story of american history. i concurr with some of the other posters here that if any of the u.s.'s conflicts are truly "just" wars (again, a concept i have a hard time wrapping my mind around), the wars fought by the native american indians in the 1800s especially, as the federal government supported a policy of genocide and extermination of them, in the name of manifest destiny and "progress" for white settlers.

in some ways the actions of the sioux, comanche, blackfoot, etc. can be analogized to the conflict in iraq currently...do we really wonder why "natives" fight back when they believe that the encroaching military power is really there to take, not to give?

not sure how well that would go over in repub country though...

Don't forget the eastern seaboard groups, too, during the early colonial era.

A just war would necessarily include that those who think the war is "Just" go (no matter what their age, sex, "creed", health etc.), they would go to put their own lives concretely against the "other" side, who would, of course, be held to the same standard. Those who think it is right would put their own lives on the line for what they think.

And people who do not think it is just would not have to lie about it to avoid peer pressure, and they would not have to pay for it in their taxes.

source: http://coursesa.matrix.msu.edu/~hst306/documents/indust.html

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

it's important, in a paper on this topic, to understand that the "stated goals" of taking the nation to war may or may not be the actual goals ... it's important to understand that powerful interests may have a stake in taking the country to war for their own selfish reasons ... and it's important to understand that these powerful interests may realize substantial economic benefits not just from war itself, but from the threat or fear of war ...

munitions manufacturers and those who gain procurement contracts can make profits from war in the billions of dollars ... and these same manufactures and their lobbyists have tremendous influence in the political process ... as a result, some politicians may be vulnerable to overstating or just lying about the case for war ... we are told about a justification that will "sell" ... we are rarely offered the fine print by these hawkish hucksters ...

I would probably try to avoid picking "good wars and bad wars" in your paper ... a more important underlying theme I would emphasize is that the ability to choose right and wrong on such life and death issues may not be available to the American people ... Ike's warning to the nation in 1961 may have highlighted a very sad truth: to have a democracy, where we can vote for or against war based on our knowledge and our values, requires an educated, informed electorate ... and when powerful corporate interests conspire with leaders in whom we have placed our trust, Americans might never really know whether the stated justifications for war are real or they are not ...

If you google "just war" there seems to be some interesting stuff that shows up. Good Luck.

sorry if this a dupe, didn't have time yet to read the thread.
http://ethics.acusd.edu/Applied/Military/Justwar.html

Before the war, I went with representatives of our peace coalition to discuss this at a Methodist church. It was a very interesting discussion.
"Just war" has been used often in religious terms and I believe has it's origins there.
I tend to agree with what one of the church members said: a just war is contrary to the teachings of Jesus. However it is a concept accepted by most Christian churches today. The Quaker church is the only one I know of that does not accept this. You might well look into Quaker teachings for another perspective.

good luck!

http://ethics.acusd.edu/Applied/Military/Justwar.html

Google "Just War" and "Church" and a lot comes up....

don't subscribe to just war theory. you can google them and probably find all kinds o' stuff.

Do our schools really brainwash kids this way? She shouldn't have to accept the premise of the assignment without question. The Howard Zinn website is down or I would direct you there.

I would reccomend several of Howard Zinn's writings. In the book Declarations of Independence he has a chapter called "Just and Unjust War." He also came out with a short book last year about war and terrorism that would be useful. Zinn is amazing and has some very intelligent things to say about that from the perspective of being a veteran of what was supposd to be a just war.

edit: clarified subject line.

Here are my raw notes on a mini-workshop I attended on Just War theory.

I’m gonna type this quickly because I have to go out. questions: pm me.

This mini wkshp was given by a catholic nun. Almost all Christian traditions catholic and protestant, have a just war theory that follows this model, with some differences here and there. Google “Social justice theory” Can probably find stuff under Catholic Social justice.

You will see from this that this is actually a theory, kind of like a flow chart to follow when determining whether one is embarking on a just war. Maybe the pope did this before our invasion, when he opposed the war. I don't know. But a lot of the reasoned explanations cautioning us against this war may have been based on this.

========================

Christian tradition.
2 ways of looking at war.

1. Pacifist tradition – ie. Ghandi and Christ.

2. Just War theory. From Augustine (380-430)

Emperor seen as a god. (Roman)Constantine – Christian.
Using sword to convert. (power)
Put church in bind. Emperor using sword to protect Christians.
Augustine came up with just war theory. Presumption against war.

Question: Is there ever a time when we can say it’s a best option? People of faith can’t let evil run rampant. Christians have to do something.

Also: nation-state has to protect its citizens.

Just war theory.
Several components: Before and during war.

Prior to war:
1. Just cause: may not fight for anything but a just cause. Includes:
real and certain danger
protect innocent life
protect necessities of life
human rights

Soldiers and politicians exempted from designation of innocent life.
Civilians are “innocent” life

2. Declared by competent authority
Fuzzy when civil or revolutionary wars.

Who is competent in today’s world?
Can single nation fight single nation or is every conflict truly a global conflict?

3. Last resort
When can you say you have tried everything?
Is it a last resort when we have personally made weak the international institutions that could deal with the problem? (UN)


4. Probability of success
What is success? Not clear.

peace in our world. Does this war create so much animosity that it pushes peace far into the future?

Once war started:

How we wage war.
1. Comparative justice
Which side is sufficiently right to do what we’re doing?
Bombing is evil. (I'm not clear about the contxt of this)

In catholic tradition, both sides are blessed.

2. Proportionality
cost should be proportional to the goodness achieved. At some point good is disproportionate to the damage.

Can anything ever be proportionate with a single superpower with unlimited economic, technological power etc.?

One side so over balanced they can’t go to war aymore. (This to say that when one side or country is so overbalanced that there can never be an excuse to go to war because they could not lose. )

You need to assess the physical and spiritual damage i.e. soul of a nation.

3. Right intention

Always in your planning you must leave space for the goal which is reconciliation.
Do not create new enemies during war.

When do you get to the point of being vindictive?

Even if war is begun unjustly, how do you wage it justly?
Treat losers with justice. Give them a voice.

============================

I hope some of this helps. You can probably flesh this out with other info online. Good luck. :-)

In this famous speech by William Jennings Bryan, he makes a case that there were only two just wars in all history. (They happened to be the American Revolution and the American Civil War, in his opinion). If she can find that speech, she might be able to use it as an example of American thinking regarding the definition of "just war."

Wow... You people sure know your stuff! Thank you for all of the great advice and links, it really helps me out a lot.

I believe that wars occur when negotiations fail.

In my presentation, I would like to talk about well-known wars (not every one in my class takes U.S. history this year) and how they match or contradict the 7 principles of a just war. But I feel like there are only a few extreme circumstances that would lead to a just war at all. I feel that diplomacy can almost always be used to clear up a conflict, usually through pressure from the public and other countries. We are forced into war when negotiations become difficult, unpopular, or are 'not allowed'.

Seven Years War (French and Indian)- I'm not so sure about this one, I know that the colonist englishmen were treted unfairly throughout this ordeal, but I don't know if this is considered a just or unjust war. It helped lead to England emerging as the strongest country in the world at the time and helped lead to the Revolutionry War, but I forgot a lot of details about this one :(.

Revolutionary War- The colonists tried over and over to peacefully state their disputes on the different acts that Great Britain issued, yet, the king ignored their pleas. Soon violence erupted and we were pushed into the Revolutionary war. Because communications failed, we were forced to war.

Civil War- Many people think that this war was fought over slavery when in actuality, slavery was a major factor in the war, but it was mainly fought because of sectional differences and representation. I believe that this dispute could have been settled in a more peaceful way, even though for decades the North and the South tried to compromise through their differences. The South saw that their representation and acceptance in the U.S. was eroding away and began to see themselves as a part of a whole separate country; The North wanted to preserve the Union. I believe that a lot of good came out of this war, but the war in itself was not just.

World War I- This war erupted because of many events, such as the arms race in Europe, the murder of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajova, and the different alliances that were formed (there are more but these are the more common ones). War was of course, the the worst way to settle a disagreement, but was the easiest. I think that the U.S. had no other choice than to enter the war. The German policies on the seas, and the Zimmerman Note were two controversial factors that pushed us into the war. Germany and Britain wanted us in the war and did anything in their power to get us involved in it. Woodrow Wilson was a pacifist and tried to keep America neutral for as long as possible; he stated at the beginning of his first term that he hated politics and wanted to take Washington's Advice to "steer clear of forein affairs", and he ran his second election on, " I kept you out of the war". I believe that the war was unjust, but the U.S.'s entering the war was just.

World War II- Some people believe that this war was just, others do not (myself included). The war in Europe was just, but once that ended and the heat turned to Asia things became more complicated. There is no doubt that the U.S. was placed in a very delicate position when Japan was certain to lose, yet the country would not surrender. We had 2 choices, to drop the newly developed A-bomb in Japan, or order a full scale invasion on Japan. In order for the invasion to be successful, the U.S. would need the aide of Russia, but the communists were a rising threat that we did not want to meddle in and we were reluctant to take sides with such a dangerous potential ally. An invasion would be longer and many American soldiers would be killed in the struggle, but in the end it was evident that Japan would be defeated. If the A-bomb was dropped, then it would save AMERICAN lives, money, the problem of siding with Russia in an invasion, and we could exhibit to Russia our new military strength. Millions of Japanese lives were lost at the expense of American soldier's lives. This act did successfully end the second world war but launched us into the Cold War. Therefore, I believe that this was an unjust war.

In the spirit of your belief in diplomacy and that almost all wars can be avoided, I offer some thoughts from Martin Luther King. As you know MLK spent his life teaching the ways of non-violence. Though most of this does not directly mention war, many of these principals can be applied when working to avoid it. King was actively opposed to the Vietnam war and you may be able to find some of his eloquent words addressing this by Googling 'Martin Luther King' and 'Vietnam war'.
-------------

Derived from "Pilgrimage to Nonviolence" in Dr. King's book Stride Toward Freedom, Harper & Row, 1958.

Martin Luther King- Six Principals Of Nonviolence

Six Principles of Nonviolence

--Nonviolence is a way of life for courageous people. It is active nonviolent resistance to evil...

--Nonviolence seeks to win friendship and understanding. The end result of nonviolence is redemption and reconciliation...

--Nonviolence seeks to defeat injustice, not people. Nonviolence recognizes that evil doers are also victims.

--Nonviolence holds that suffering can educate and transform. Nonviolence willingly accepts the consequences of its acts...

--Nonviolence chooses love instead of hate. Nonviolence resists violence of the spirit as well as the body. Nonviolent love is active, not passive. Nonviolent love does not sink to the level of the hater. Love restores community and resists injustice.

--Nonviolence recognizes the fact that all life is interrelated.
Nonviolence believes that the universe is on the side of justice. The nonviolent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually win.

Six Steps for Nonviolent Social Change

--Information Gathering: In order to understand and articulate the issue, problem or injustice facing the community, you much first research, investigate and gather all vital information that will increase your understanding of the problem. Know all sides of the issue, including the other party's position.

--Education: It is essential to inform others about your issue. This minimizes misunderstandings, and gains you support and sympathy.

--Personal Commitment: Eliminate hidden motives and prepare yourself to accept suffering, if necessary, in your work for justice.

--Negotiation: Using grace, humor and intelligence, confront the other party with a list of injustices and a plan for addressing and resolving these injustices. Nonviolent communication does not seek to humiliate, but to call forth the good in an opponent.

--Direct Action: Used to morally force the opponent to work with you in resolving the injustices, direct action imposes a "creative tension" into the conflict.

--Reconciliation: Nonviolence does not seek to defeat the opponent, but to seek his/her friendship and understanding. It is directed against evil systems, forces, policies and acts not against persons.
------------------------

Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him.

- Martin Luther King Jr.


We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Remaining Awake Through A Great Revolution ", 3.31.68


Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided man.

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963

A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom.

- Martin Luther King Jr., "The Trumpet of Conscience", 1967

Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree.

- Martin Luther King Jr., quoting Martin Luther


I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality... I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word.

- Martin Luther King Jr., Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech , 12.10.64

If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in the struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos.

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Justice Without Violence", 4.3.57


The hope of a secure and livable world lies with disciplined nonconformists who are dedicated to justice, peace and brotherhood.

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Strength to Love", 1963

The time is always right to do what is right.

- Martin Luther King Jr., "Letter From Birmingham Jail ", 4.16.63
--------------
on edit: most of this can be found here: http://thekingcenter.com/

My daughter took notes and looked at the links. Lots of fertile discussion ground here for her and I to talk about - I actually made notes from the comments, because there's so many areas/aspects to explore.

Thank you again for all of the great input!!!

on edit: btw, my daughter was going to continue writing more in her post, but seeing how she was 'getting into it', I suggested she actually 'start on the paper'. So, sorry if her ending is abrupt there.

please let us know how she makes out with her paper ... maybe someday soon she'll have her own DU account ...

I know I don't...

-A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.

fair enough

-A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.

what is the legitimate authority has lost its legitimacy in the hearts and minds of its people? these points seem to stress keeping sovereignty constant and unchanging...

-A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.

ok

-A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.

-a hopeless cause can only be made possible through sacrifice and death. define hopeless, nothing is impossible

-The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.

-could be to change society, you could have a peaceful society of authoritarians that subvert everything and all ideas...

-The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

yeah, that's fair