Just War Tradition and Short Wars
By Greg McCulley
Drafted 20 May 1999
"The essence of war is fire, famine, and pestilence.� They contribute to its outbreak;� they are among its weapons; they become its consequences."�
- Dwight David Eisenhower
����������� War has been described in many ways throughout our history.� War has been said to bring out the worst and the best elements of mankind in its art and in its science.� It is not Hell; Hell is Hell. But was is, perhaps, the closest thing to Hell a Heaven-bound individual is to ever see.� For that reason, some have stated that a righteous people should do anything to avoid war, and if a nation should find herself at war, or its brink, she should do all in her power to make it as short as possible.� This view appears humane and just on the face of it, but when seeking to truly employ such a policy, one finds that indeed, a short war is not necessarily the best war.� This paper seeks to address why this is so.
����������� The objective in war is to compel the enemy to do our will.� The more rapidly and efficiently a nation can achieve this, the more life and treasure may be spared.� However, international law, treaties, and the Just War Tradition dictate when and how war will be waged.� There are times when the objective of war (as stated above) and the laws of war diverge.� When law or morality prevents us from exploiting, to the fullest extent, technology or circumstance, we exercise restraint.� There are many historical examples that illustrate both the observance and disregard of such restraint in war.
����������� Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq, fought a bitter war with Iran for many years.� In his effort to compel the enemy to do his will, he employed any manner of weaponry he could lay his hands on.� He used conventional weapons, and later chemical weapons against the Iranians.� There were even reports of Iraq using (or rather testing) chemical weapons on her own citizens in order to refine and develop these weapons, among other motives.� No doubt, Hussein thought that by using these terrible, and therefore potentially more effective devices, he would win the war faster; he sought to compel the enemy to do his will.� However, to that end, he violated international law by using illegal weapons.� Furthermore, he used them on noncombatants, never mind the fact that the noncombatants were his own citizenry.�
����������� Years later, during the Persian Gulf War, the United Nations coalition found itself in a position to use nuclear weapons against Iraq.� Why did the US, the largest component of the UN force, restrain herself from using these weapons?� Because there was no need to do so.� The concept of minimum force compelled us to use the least amount of force required to defeat the enemy.� It would have been a much faster war (and, perhaps, much more effective war) if the US had placed a well-aimed tactical nuclear weapon in the heart of Iraq's command and control centers.� However, restraint was called for and restrain was exercised.
����������� There are many ways a nation could wage a short war.� Let us look at unconventional versus conventional warfare.� Take two fictitious states, countries A and B, and set them into a war that all agree to be a just war (ergo, all the conditions for jus ad bellum were satisfied).� Suppose that country A launched strategic nuclear missiles at country B, and that the targets for the attack were civilian population centers, national cultural treasurers, and civilian food supplies.� This would be a counter value measure, and while it could bring a swift end to hostilities, it could elevate them, and will definitely be a violation of the conditions for jus in bello.� Jus in bello refers to whether a particular form of the use of force or violence is justified while in armed conflict.� The use of strategic nuclear weapons could bring a swift end to the war, but without discrimination between the targeting of combatants and noncombatants, the act would not be just.� The same is to be said about biological weapons;� they are just too indiscriminant to be allowed under jus in bello.
����������� Now let's consider a war between the same two countries in which one of the nations used the same nuclear weapons to attack military targets.� Such targets, it could be reasonably assumed, would be military, and therefore most of the casualties would be combatants.� This is considered to be a counter force action, attacking the military capacity and structure of the enemy rather than the civilian aspects of a nation's society.� But, even a counter force action is not always going to be just.� What must be considered is, again, �the use of restraint when using force.� In other words, the violence employed must be appropriate.� It is not an "everyone verses everyone" proposition just because jus ad bellum has been considered.
����������� What constitutes appropriate?� One thing is proportionality.� A ready example stems from the recent North Korean launch of a missile at Japan.� The missile (or at least most of it) flew over Japan and through Japanese airspace.� If North Korea had aimed that missile at a Japanese target, and had killed say, 5 Japanese civilians, would Japan (and/or the United States as an ally) be justified in launching an all-out air assault on North Korea?� The answer is no, because the level of evil done by the opposition would not warrant such a response;� the concept of proportionality would not be satisfied.
����������� War causes one of the greatest losses of life known to mankind.� It is a natural reaction to abhor it. But in that abhorrence, we must not allow ourselves to become tempted to resort to any means to end a given war.� There is only one thing that prevents an individual from behaving like an animal during armed conflict, and that is the adherence to an accepted code of morality that ensures a fair, proportional response to attack and� a discriminatory eye with regard to civilians caught in the crossfire.� Myopically striving for the shortest possible war may not always compel us to consider those things.