Just and Unjust Wars

I found this book after reading the following in another book, “The West Point Way of Leadership”:“Independence of mind is taught at West Point in several venues, including a particularly challenging course in moral philosophy. One of the texts used for this course is “Just and Unjust Wars” by Michael Walzer. In addition to his academic and authorial credentials, Walzer was a Vietnam-era peace activist. The book grew out of his desire to resolve the troubling issues of that war which affected him ard many others of his generation—including West Pointers. This book is a groundbreaker in the study of war; no modern moral theorist has so cogently articulated just-war theory with specific his¬torical lessons for those who may make war in the future. Year by year, West Point is probably the most substantial buyer of Walzer’s book.“In the study of this book, the Academy draws the cadets into critically examining the moral issues raised by U.S. mili¬tary history and policy. This kind of scrutiny forces cadets at times to call into question the mission, and even the sense of themselves, that brought them to the Academy in the first place. The equivalent would be business schools offering courses to question the value of capitalism, or to debate whether routine business practices can be justified.“Why does the Academy think it a good idea to elevate the cadets’ sensitivity to moral issues of going to war and fighting wars? Why should leaders think about the basic morality of their situations? It’s crucial because leadership entails having a mind broad enough to sense when the organization is wrong and a heart courageous enough to do something to fix it.”I’ll add to the above by saying “Just and Unjust Wars” is exceptionally well researched and written, even elegant at times. In reading it, I’m reminded at times of the movie “Paper Chase” with Professor Kingsfield’s Socratic-method questions and answers, followed by more questions and answers, spinning the tumblers of one’s mind, turning one’s skull full of mush into a mind thinking like a lawyer...about right and wrong. I cannot add much more than Henry J’s excellent review other than to say that, for me, the author gave interesting insights and background on various wars I have not seen anywhere else. I was especially intrigued with his section on theVietnam War, the source of much Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among veterans, with a lot of it caused by the inability to sort out what was the “right” thing to have done, resulting in much misery as one self-assaults one’s own character for having acted one way or the other in a cauldron of moral dilemmas. While the book doesn’t deal with PTSD as such—in fact the term doesn’t even show up in the book—for some such-afflicted readers it may help by putting into perspective the difficulty mankind has confronted over the millennia as it has searched for what in warring is just and unjust.For anyone who’s involved in war, as a soldier, a spectator, a person wondering about martial history, or someone just curious about his/her own character when placed in extremely challenging, life and death, existential situations, I highly recommend this book!Of possible interest: George Washington’s Liberty Key: Mount Vernon’s Bastille Key – the Mystery and Magic of Its Body, Mind, and Soul, a best-seller at Mount Vernon. “Character is Key for Liberty!” andStrategy Pure and Simple: Essential Moves for Winning in Competition and Cooperation

War is the irreducible fact of history. It simply exists. The well intentioned will never be able to wish it away. At best, what can be done is to prepare for war to thereby deter aggressors. But should deterrence fail, what then? At what point is war justified? What if an act of war cannot be distinguished from a mere threat of war? Or worse yet, from a false threat of war? And once in war, to what extent is its prosecution justified? To what extent should an aggressor be punished before finishing a war? And what about war crimes, can they be justified to defend a just cause? And then after war, who is to be held responsible? Who was the aggressor? Who fought the fair fight? How will former combatants continue to coexist? There are no simple formulas to answer these questions, but "Just and Unjust Was" is a comprehensive, structured guide to these eternal issues.Walzer divides the subject into five categories:I. The Moral Reality of War: War has a moral element as much as it has a strategic element, which is relative to each culture. If there is a war, there is a crime. Regardless of who commits the crime, soldiers on each side have equal rights and obligations for when, how, and whom to kill.II. The Theory of Aggression: From politics to the battlefield, who commits aggression and who has rights to be defended justifies the violence. Prevention and preemption muddy these determinations. War's end and the importance of winning fashion the justice delivered and the guarantees for peace.III. The War Convention: Not all wars are created equally, and thus not all are prosecuted the same. The theory of proportionality enters the debate as does the death of civilians and non-combatants. Asymmetric wars of insurgencies and terrorism complicate the lines of battle, and the balance of violence. Reprisals rear the ugly head of cyclic exchanges of violence.IV. Dilemmas of War: Consider the evolution of war from the days of honor, chivalry, and the fair fight, to the modern imperative to fight the total war with victory at all costs. Consider the ultimate end of nuclear war, and the ultimate threat to deter all aggression.V. The Question of Responsibility: After the dust settles, sorting out the belligerents, and prosecuting those responsible for the crime of war. For the crimes in war, the soldiers and commanders stand for review.Walzer's arguments on given issues are usually thoroughly developed and usually terse, but not always easy to grasp. Every argument has its historical antecedent with just enough background and context without over narrating the events. The only shortcoming of Walzer's style was a propensity to assert moral principles without supporting cultural or historical background. Morals are, even as noted by Walzer, relative to culture. For instance, calling the threat of nuclear retaliation immoral leaves me perplexed. Does he mean that the threat of retaliation should be removed before the threat of nuclear aggression? Whose culture, or whose political persuasion is he speaking from?In sum, if you're looking to get an overview of just war theory without having to dig into primary sources this book is probably the best available.

Pretty interesting read. Could totally argue some of what the author is saying in the terrorism and guerrilla warfare chapters though.

This book is a bit slow, but it really makes you think. You will be left questioning your morals and values. Not a bad read if you are needing to write about ethics of wartime or argue about the validity of war.

Awesome quality of book, just as I ordered and expected. I don't love the content of the book but it was a must-read for my college curriculum, and wasn't too horrible to read (except Walzer does seem more interesting when he speaks).

Came quick, gotta love it

As a work with a singular focus this is a good book. My only problem, which is a huge one for me, is that this author's analysis hinges on the acceptance of an abstraction as its ultimate foundation for arguments presented. What is that abstraction? That an 'implied' contract exists between state and subject which grants states their sovereignty and justification. Because of this abstraction - which shows up around page 50 - all analysis becomes skewed.

Bought for a class on war philosophy but turned out to be a very interesting read!