Weldon is echoing, almost "channeling" some of the reflections of Prince Andrei in War and Peace. Andrei is disgusted with the pomp and chivalry used to gloss over the facts of war.  He thinks to himself that it should be no-holds-barred.  Despite his disillusionment (?) he continues to serve honorably until his death.

As a member of the profession of arms, I thought it a very important part of my role to keep the Pandora's Box of armed conflict from flying completely open.  It was restraint of force that distinguished me from the thug.  Making war really bad won't stop it. War already is really bad, and it hasn't stopped.  No restraint + modern weapons means the end of everything.      

Stefan

Weldon's comment were made during WW2 before Mao was known about outside China.  His comments were certainly not attributable to Mao Tse Tung.

He was in fact during WW2 a Wing Commander in the RAF and an aide to the head of Bomber Command.  Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur 'Bomber' Harris was the advocate of area bombing of German cities,  a particularly terrible way of waging war on the civilian population.  Weldon as an Oxford philosophy Don was well placed to offer philosophical justification.

The EU is an example of a project to avoid war, mainly between Germany and France.

Hello Barry - very good question.

IMO, chivalry is a very bad adviser during wars... any war.

Taking the war Mr. Weldon used to support his statement (WW2), clearly if France and England would declare war on Hitler after his armies invaded Czechoslovakia, starting to counter-attack the Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht, the history of WW2 would likely have ended much sooner and with a much smaller number of casualties as it did.

Even Hitler's generals were against that invasion and feared the British-French reaction.

But Mr. Hitler was a big gambler and sensed that they would chicken. Why? Because in democracies public opinion is sacrosanct and influences votes. Thus Messieurs Chamberlain and Daladier held it more important to cheat their constituents with promises of "eternal peace" then to confront Hitler's bravados.

My answer to your question is that I agree with Weldon's thesis.

Take the situation today:

For long now, the European and US politicians allowed ISIS to practice their barbarian fighting methods. That is costing the lives of hundred thousands Iraqis, Syrians, Curds and Catholics. Does the civilized world reacted?

NO!! Only when Muslim terrorism reached the grounds of the Old Continent did some voices start to push for a stronger reaction.

And the polls answered to that challenge. Sadly, the result is that ultra-right parties are about to occupy their countries governments.

As for ISIS it is a Phoenix that will reborn from its recent defeats because their fanatic leaders still do not perceive the West willing to confront and exterminate them.

BTW, one good example of how Weldon is right was the Americans' bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But only after Japan refused to render on May 8, 1945. Until then the war in the Pacific was evolving slowly, thousands dying daily while the kamikazes were butchering the American/Australian/Canadian troops.

The war only ended with the horror of the atomic bombs!

In fact I wanted to say that this is a very interesting question. I will stop communicating on RG, because of various reasons. This is why I corrected my comment that was here.

best.

Dragan

Using quotes and philosophies from RAF Bomber Command personnel is rather unlikely to lead to any deep answers on the question of "just war".  Bomber Command spent the entire conflict (and many years post war) justifying the means they were employing (strategic area bombing of civilian targets).  I would not use Curtis Lemay's views on the subject either....we're getting into Dr. Strangelove material here. 

The deeper question appears to be whether the war they were fighting in was a "just war".  Jeesh....was Austria-Hungary's declaration against Serbia "just"?  Was the U.S. declaration against Japan "just"?  To get to the unpoliticized answers on that.....that's a month-long conference for open-minded individuals. 

In the modern times -- a practical measurement of "causus belli" would be when a nation goes to war for reasons that are not based upon self-interest, but upon reasons of contemporary morality and humanity (and even those can be interpreted differently by different social, ethnic and religious groups). 

Ugh...I need more coffee.    

Adam

Weldon was first and foremost an Oxford philosophy Don, Curtis Le May was not. Weldon was not in his speeches and lectures after WW2 representing Bomber Command, he spoke with the academic authority of his exalted intellectual status.   

In respect of the Austro-Hungarian war against Serbia it would appear that Wittgenstein thought the cause 'just'  He volunteered for military service in spite of being medically exempt.

@Adam

I can hardly figure out a war that one could call "just."

First at all because in human history a sizeable number of wars were initiated by warmongers (if winners, they became later dictators) seeking monetary gains and/or geographic expansion and/or attempting to impose an ideology/religion.

What followed in several of those cases was a "Reaction War" against the originator(s) of such aggression. Eventually one could call such reaction as a "just war,"

But again, history tells us that after awhile the "good guys" become as cruel as the initiators, which then would scratch the nomination of these as fighting a "just war."

I still believe that there is no such thing as a just war and that Weldon was right in stating that a war can only be ended by increased violence. If one can mention exceptions they probably would fall into the category of those which reinforce the rule.

@Tom

   Concur.  My comment that a "just war" in modern times would not be based upon national (or identity) self-interest.....seems almost impossible to 'measure'.  Going to war for a "moral reason" does not mean there isn't ALSO self-interest involved.  If the West intervened in Syria right now "to save the civilian population from further horrors" -- would it be just?  Or would it be an attempt to impose Western ideals on the Levant and thwart Russia?   

    I certainly see Weldon's point -- and the use (and outcome) the of the extreme destructive power (violence) of the atomic bombs against Japan seems to reinforce this.

    Until we get past humans being the writers of the historical record....how will we ever be able to measure the "justness" of a war?  :)   

@Barry --

   I must admit to not knowing enough about Weldon -- but I'm never impressed by academic status.

   Sort of an "honor among thieves" thing for me!  Anyone philosophizing on the nature or justness of war immediately after one of (if not the) most destructive wars in history....and having played a role.....the personal and organizational politics are too great.  Not a shot at Weldon -- I often find myself checking myself on biases and poor perceptions that are in-bred, deeply rooted. 

The only just war is one of self-defense. Is war a free choice or determined? If natural, then universal as Hobbes war of all. If chosen, then artificial and arbitrary without necessity, and basically insane, without purpose unable to stop ending in human extinction. Most war is over territory or beliefs, not the freely chosen or hidden, natural self-annihilation of our species.The scare tactic of butchery is a choice among options. It is not pragmatic to engage in butchery because the other side is us, and even a war without rules still has its rule to ignore all rules. Can we freely choose to become sociopaths and serial killers or is that who we are?     

I don't believe there has ever been a just war nor even one based on the common good, rather the massive destruction of so many and so much while a few mercenaries and leaders gain misplaced recognition and wealth. That's not a very pithy statement  but I never understand the burning desire to train humans to kill and maim each other and the earth creating very long term intergenerational trauma. And it's why I am forever trying to establish a Canadian University of Peace to train people not to kill, maim, and destroy for religious dogma, a piece of real estate, or on a whim. 

From what year and source publication was this quotation, please?

"

So therefore, it is not a question of ethics at all! War is not the opposite of peace, nor is it a corollary of it! War is a complete breakdown in civilization, so it shouldn't have "ethics" thrust upon it. Because that way lies danger; that way, war becomes acceptable! The means of death and destruction are immaterial, war was always war, the only difference today is the scale of it! So, when this war is finally over, the world should accept that there is no limit; there are no "Hague Rules of Combat" anymore! The worse war is, the more savage it becomes! When people understand this, and stop trying to limit it, then perhaps, we shall achieve lasting peace!

         Thomas Dewar Weldon: Fellow in Philosophy Magdalen College Oxford"

Weldon is echoing, almost "channeling" some of the reflections of Prince Andrei in War and Peace. Andrei is disgusted with the pomp and chivalry used to gloss over the facts of war.  He thinks to himself that it should be no-holds-barred.  Despite his disillusionment (?) he continues to serve honorably until his death.

As a member of the profession of arms, I thought it a very important part of my role to keep the Pandora's Box of armed conflict from flying completely open.  It was restraint of force that distinguished me from the thug.  Making war really bad won't stop it. War already is really bad, and it hasn't stopped.  No restraint + modern weapons means the end of everything.      

Gloria

The quote is from a speech made by Weldon in 1944 in response to criticism of Bomber Command from Sir Stafford Cripps.  You can read about it here:

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=25898

The quotation seems to be pragmatic, rather than philosophical – how to make war so horrific as to create a strong disincentive for all sides, thus bringing about peace.   Weldon thus urges his readers not to contemplate military ethics, because violence circumscribed by ethics would be more bearable and sustainable (”Because that way lies danger; that way, war becomes acceptable!”)

By contrast, the sentiment articulated by most commentators in this thread is philosophical;  that is, the commentators do contemplate the concept of military ethics & determine that war is unjust in itself.   In doing so, they reject the prevailing ethical belief of the vast vast majority of humans that violence (both individual & collective) can be ethical, and even an ethical obligation.   Reading the opinions of anti-pacifists like George Orwell and John Stuart Mill (to name just a distinguished two of many others) can explain why Weldon (pragmatically) and the commentators in this thread (philosophically) represent such a small minority.

I can't let go of my conviction that we, or most of us, can be taught if there were such a thing as a power, the keyword, to make it happen.

My article comparing the moral philosophies of Ibn Khadun and Locke (and Hobbes) sheds light on the eastern and western conceptions of 'right' and 'wrong'. I show that whearas western philosophy is based on the logic of "I believe", Islamic political philosophy is based on "God says" - i.e., that it is impossible to know for sure if something is true unless God said so. I think you will find it an interesting read.

Article Contrasting Political Theory in the East and West: Ibn Khald...

Jaan

Excellent paper!  I think you should post it on the following site also.  Your commnets on the rule of law would be very useful to those following that thread.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_the_rule_of_law_What_are_its_implications_and_limits

As a counterpoint to some of the arguments above, I think there is an inherent danger in creating a general perception that war fought according to rules somehow renders it devoid of horror and therefore makes it a desirable course of action. Down that road lies the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I also respectfully disagree with Reed's point about how restraint distinguishes one from the thug; most of the restraints imposed upon me during a professional military career had more to do with optimizing public perception than actually minimizing suffering. I think one has to look very closely at who wrote the rule-book and why. To a degree, I think Weldon was correct, but I think there is a very fine line between preventing the creation of an acceptable face of war, and becoming an advocate for atrocity, and Weldon's association with 'Bomber' Harris puts him into the arena of the latter.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear all, 

Here is a short video of the political scientist Robert Kagan, speaking on the topic of authoritarianism--and what to do about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27opuFFx7zM

Kagan is a specialist in international relations and geopolitics at the Brookings Institution. His argument is of a neoconservative character, to the effect that the success of democracy depends on the configuration of the great powers, and in our times, it depends on the international reach of U.S. military and political power. Kagan supported Secretary Clinton in the recent election and he is an outspoken critic of the President elect. If liberal democracy is in decline, then Kagan's reply is that this calls for greater engagement in world affairs to maintain the international order which has grown up around American power.

If you listen carefully, you will see that Kagan is partly replying to "Frank" Fukuyama, who was apparently in the audience. Specifically, he addresses the "failure or performance" issue; and he says that this happens repeatedly --in effect that it is nothing new. If there is a failure of democracy's performance, then the answer is a new emphasis on countering democracy's foes around the world. That, at least, is my impression of his view. 

A longer statement of Kagan's views is available on-line and was published in 2015 in the Journal of Democracy. The article is titled "The Weight of Geopolitics":

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/weight_of_geopolitics_kagan.pdf

Comments invited. Does Kagan get this right? Is American strength and intervention abroad the best way to oppose authoritarianism?

H.G. Callaway 

What is authoritarianism? What are its varieties and sources? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/What_is_authoritarianism_What_are_its_varieties_and_sources#5850bbcd3d7f4b00a42cc541 [accessed Dec 13, 2016].

"Is American strength and intervention abroad the best way to oppose authoritarianism?" No, quite the contrary.

Kagan, like most neoconservatives, is fundamentally pessimistic about human nature. That is, neocons seem to think that people can't get along unless constantly threatened. So, they tend to like authority figures and authoritarianism and are more than willing to tell "necessary lies" to maintain power. (Consider the myth of the U.S. "spreading democracy," when what the country has primarily done since World War II is subvert or overthrow democratic governments while establishing and defending several autocratic and oppressive others, creating tension around the world to assure weapons sales, etc.)

The display and exercise of U.S. military power around the world serves as an example to others and conveys the message that the threat or use of force is a satisfactory, indeed preferred, method of conflict resolution. That message invites rather than discourages authoritarianism.

Hahahaha: "Is the casus belli or just war ever possible?"

I think this is no more a philosophical question than it is a pragmatic one. War, by its nature, indicates the breakdown, or failure, of civilised peaceful conflict-resolution infrastructure. Most protagonists in war have justifications for their choice of war - however inefficient a conflict-resolution practice I think it is. Hence, justness and unjustness can be judged on the basis of whether or not the actors are fighting the real problem - the real enemy - and not the purposes and intents of war. Any war is aimed at compulsion. So, all war is just - otherwise we look at its methods, weapons, and other idealistic ethics of war.

Sabastiano

I beg to differ as would those who formulated the Nuremberg Code.  War is justified very much by reference to philosophical theories, in particular those of a utilitarian nature.  It is indeed one of the reasons why utilitarianism is faulty as a philosophy.

Even 'the good guys' become bad guys in war which is precisely what Weldon is discussing in his speech.  "In the interests of military necessity" has been a justification for the most appaling acts of savagery since organised warfare began.

In reality no war is 'just', In spite of millions of words of political rhetoric no war has ever been fought to obtain justice.  

Dear

Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning "an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war" (literally, "a case of war"). A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact.[2][3] Either may be considered an act of war.

Regards

 If casus belli can be possible... Under any circumstances it would mean that the world would have to exist  in a state of 'Absolute Anarchy' and away from civilization.

No magnitude of war is ‘just’. I agree with Barry “…no war has ever been fought to obtain justice” However the term ‘justice’ is relative as it is based on a concept of moral rightness that incorporates varying perspectives on equity, ethics, rationality, religion and law.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Turner,

Perhaps the point has already been made? But the obvious answer seem to be the minimal one. You ask is just war ever possible? 

If the neighboring country masses troops on your border and then invades and starts shooting, then you would be justified in making war to repel the invasion. 

As an example, consider the German and Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939. Surely the Poles were justified in fighting back, even though they had little chance of success.

H.G. Callaway

Virtually all societies (modern & premodern, educated & uneducated, religious & irreligious, Western & non-Western, militarist and non-militarist) hold that violence can be ethical;  even an ethical obligation.   What explains the divergent sentiment by most commentators on this thread?