Michael Walzer wrote "Just and Unjust Wars" in the years following Vietnam. But given its sweeping nature-- it is a treatise on the ethics behind the theory of war-- the book is certainly still relevant today. War is hardly a new phenomenon, and Walzer draws on examples as far back as the Greeks.
"Just and Unjust Wars" delves into the moral issues surrounding armed conflict. Walzer explores the rights and wrongs of invasion, neutrality, siege, deterrance, reprisal, and assigning responsibility for aggression or war crimes. The deeper he goes, the more the reader realizes that these issues are far from simple, for the hawks or the doves. The emergent theory is the theory of war and the ethics behind it-- the "rules" we fight by, and why. This book rates a "+".
Walzer structures his arguments around twin principles: jus ad bellum and jus in bello-- the justice of war, and justice in war. The first refers to the justness of the war itself, whether it is one for which human lives are worth sacrificing. The second refers to the way the war is conducted, whether the lives were lost in fair battle. Although these concepts seem similar, a little thought reveals that they are in fact quite separate: a just war can be fought unjustly, and an immoral war can be fought according to all the ethical rules.
Hence, the book considers jus ad bellum and jus in bello separately. The analysis of the first concerns the theory of aggression. What acts by states are considered criminally aggressive? When is it OK to intervene, to aid a revolution (or start one), to fight a guerilla war? Walzer addresses all of these points in careful detail.
Much of the theory about the justness of war comes from an interesting analogy between states and individuals. After all, we have fairly well-defined rules about what constitutes criminal aggression, as opposed to legitimate self-defense, in human interactions. It is possible in many cases to apply these same principles to acts committed by states. Walzer lays out how the analogy works, allowing for some special cases, such as preemptive strikes. Intriguingly, following the morals applied to individual behavior works quite well as a means of determining jus ad bellum.
Justice in war is a different matter. Fighting a war means killing people, and there is little in the way of guidance from civil society. We do not have detailed moral rules about the best way to take lives during normal circumstances. Hence, the theory of jus in bello is one that applies only to war.
Walzer considers such tricky issues as sieges and blockades, disguise (of soldiers as civilians), and the proper magnitude for reprisals. Acting morally during a war can be more difficult than in the stages before war because the responsibility to act justly is spread down to military leaders fighting on the front. Technically, it does not spread to individual soldiers, but that is a point Walzer takes up in a later chapter on accountability.
Later sections of the book deal with newer issues that are still being integrated into the formal theory of war. Nuclear deterrance, a large concern in the late 70's, is particuarly vexing. This strategy strains the ethical guidelines established in conventional war by threatening a future so horrible that no one dares find out if it would actually be carried out. Never before has such a strategy been possible, and we are still learning how to live with it. (And now, in the early 00's, nuclear deterrance has a whole new dimension with the continued expansion of the number of states wielding weapons of mass destruction).
I was a little concerned that Walzer struggles so hard with fitting nuclear weapons into his framework. In the end, he almost says, "these weapons are so far outside of conventional war that they are hard to treat ethically at all in my theory." Well, that's a problem! Nuclear weapons are here to stay, so we'd better construct a moral theory of war that includes them.
Another troubling case is terrorism, although less so than nuclear threats. Walzer knits together a reasonable way of thinking about terrorism from the ideas already present in conventional and guerilla war. In fact, I wished he had treated this subject in more detail since it is of primary importance at this time.
The final chapters on accountability are interesting. Walzer examines the cases where we might plausibly accuse politicians, citizens, military leaders, or soldiers of committing or abetting "war crimes." It is worth noting that by acknowledging the existence of crimes within wartime, we are implicitly acknowledging that war has rules. If there were no rules, there could be no violations. "Just and Unjust Wars" is an attempt to explicitly define those rules. The chapters on accountability discuss who must play by which rules, and who will enforce the rules. Interestingly, people in democracies have greater responsibility for the wars their leaders fight because (theoretically) they have the voice with which to stop the criminal actions.
While I agreed in general with his thoughts on culpability, I still had a few concerns. Walzer almost universally excludes soldiers from responsibility for their actions (with expected exceptions in the case of being asked to kill civilians or other such immoral commands). His assumption is that soldiers are not fighting by choice, but are agents of the state and are charged only with obeying orders. Without this rigid adherance to the chain of command, armies cannot fight effectively (says Walzer), and in the grand scheme fewer people will be killed if we have effective armies. Thus, soldiers are not responsible.
But he also argues that citizens of democratic states are in some ways accountable for the actions of their (elected) leaders. Such citizens have the power to protest, demonstrate, exert political pressure, etc., without fear of being killed. If a citizen has not performed actions all the way to the limit of what would be safe for him or her within the system, the citizen shares blame for the government's action.
I found myself wondering how the same government could have total control over the soldiers fighting on its behalf, and yet be considered susceptible to the actions of civilians. It is unacceptable (or at least not required) for soldiers to object to war because the army must remain efficient, and yet it is required that civilians do so. Those who do the killing and those who protest it are supposed to be mutually exclusive groups? If I felt ambivalent about a war, I could escape my democratic civilian accountability by joining the military and participating in it?
A final issue with the book is its presentation. Walzer writes about high-level, theoretical moral issues, then illustrates them with very specific examples (such as particular battles). There is little in the middle-- meaning practical guidelines for how to act morally. You can read about the overarching principle, and then you can read how it would apply in retrospect to the Battle of Wounded Knee, but the reader is left with little concrete idea of how to approach a new situation. What should I do if terrorists fly planes into some buildings in my country? What's the first question I should ask myself to think about responding morally? You can find the answers to these questions in "Just and Unjust Wars," but you must dig hard for them.
Does Walzer succeed at developing a cogent theory of war? For the most part, yes, although given the complex nature of the subject, there can never be complete agreement. Walzer has drawn much criticism for his ideas about "supreme emergency"-- which he defines as a time when circumstances are so dire that it becomes acceptable to breach the rules of war. This "safety valve" clearly cuts both ways-- it could be used to defend freedom or to intensify aggression. Even though Walzer makes a careful case for exactly when conditions may be called "supreme emergency," some have argued that it is too dangerous to include this clause in the theory of war at all.
But don't get the wrong impression. Walzer's arguments are not full of gaping holes. Most impressively, he weaves together a (as nearly as possible) consistent moral view of war and aggression that is based on respect for human life and the idea that fundamental moral principles can extend across all societies. He is a moral absolutist, but recognizes that the nitty-gritty of applying absolute principles to the real world is a messy and ambiguous business. The gray areas are genuine, and must be addressed with caution and good faith when they (inevitably) come up.
Subsidiary to this result is that Walzer is no pacifist, and this book can convince a thoughtful dove that there are times when fighting is necessary, and indeed right. Protecting human dignity and creating a world where all can reach their potential may require that some perish in order to stem aggression. Walzer points out that valuing life means believing it is worth defending, which could paradoxically involve killing. He does not shrink from or try to conceal this paradox.
One more thing worth pointing out is that Walzer is just one voice in many pontificating on the theory of war. His view is largely self-contained, but some parts of the book are designed to debunk specific arguments that have been advanced elsewhere. A favorite target is the "utilitarian" viewpoint often adopted by practioners of war. I am not an expert on this theory, but it seems to resemble the Chicago school of economics, in which most decicions are made mathematically, based on coldly rational calculations of value and efficiency. Walzer finds many ways in which this viewpoint is morally bankrupt, and in fact leads to greater losses and risks than necessary.
Reading this book was simultaneously uplifting and depressing. I was heartened to see that the tough moral issues of war have been mapped out. The rules of war are fairly well understood, but still constantly evolving, and books like "Just and Unjust Wars" provide a framework for expanding our understanding and for applying the rules to each new situation. Of course, not everyone will agree with Walzer's ideas, but that's good too-- the book can act as a starting point for debate.
The depressing part was my complete lack of confidence in the current administration to even think about moral issues of war. Could Bush even understand Walzer's writing? Frankly, I doubt it, but even that doesn't matter because he doesn't care. The commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world isn't even interested in the ethics of declaring war or the right way to kill people. That is scary.
"Just and Unjust Wars" is a hard look at the reality of wartime justness. It is well worth reading-- unfortunately, the topic will always be timely.
Copyright © Kim Allen 2002
