Just War vs Preemptive War
When is war justified?
This is a question that has vexed many people. And obviously there can be situations war is justified – as in legitimate defence of a country against an aggressor. However, in recent times we have seen wars waged where no overt aggression was present.
Just take one example – the war against Iraq. That was was preemptive. It was waged on the basis of “intelligence” that implied Saddam Hussein “could” wage a war. Of course this was all trumped up and Iraq never posed any threat to the USA.
The same justification is being used in the run-up to a possible war with Iran. The argument (including manipulated intelligence) that Iran is a potential threat, and should be “taken out” before this threat manifests itself in a literal attack on either Israeli or US soil.
The truth is, Iran has no plans to attack anyone.
To put this war philosophy into a more human context, imagine you have a neighbour. This neighbour is paranoid about what you are doing in your garage every night (you’re building some machinery perhaps). However, your neighbour is so paranoid that he believes you are plotting to kill him.
Now, if this neighbour takes the law into his own hands and preemptively attacks you, or even kills you, then it’s quite clear he will not get off scott free for such an act. No, under our laws any preemptive attack on another person (when that person has not actually done anything) would rightly be considered as the initiation of force, and result in some jail time.
Trouble is, our political leaders do not operate on the same moral or legal plane as the rest of us. They literally are above the law.
Now, when it comes to war, contrary to what most people think, there have been serious attempts to define when war is justified, and the “Just War” theory is exactly that – a set of principles by which to judge if a war should or should not be waged.
Judge Andrew Napolitano clearly explains the Just War theory in his essay: What is a Just War?
