Just War and Terrorism: A New Policy Perspective

The idea of terrorism as policy in any policy discussion is abhorrent in most academic circles. The fact is, however, if one removes the emotion attached to the use of terrorism and approaches it as a tool it can be placed in several models used by policymakers today. For many centuries the concept of “just war” has been discussed by philosophers, policymakers, and warriors. When standards have been established that those engaged in conflict can use to determine whether or not an action is considered “just.” How did Christianity in particular move from emphasizing love (agapē, caritas) to the acceptance of waging war? This problem was dealt with when the law of war was included in discussion of natural law theory.     

The Heroic Image of the Warrior in the First World War

Abstract

Sun Tzu asserts that true success is not winning every battle fought, but subduing the enemy’s will without fighting at all. The author asserts that the U.S. planning efforts for post-WWII Japan from 1942 to 1945 reveal a unique period where military and political planners actively pursued a greater understanding of the role an enemy’s will-to-fight plays in conflict. The historical record reveals an iterative — and often heated — discourse among experts in diplomacy, governance, political culture, anthropology, and military intelligence. Consequently, Allied commanders entertained and ultimately executed a war plan for the occupation of Japan with fewer forces and less fighting than called for by the alternative plan for invasion. The fundamental difference in the two plans — an assumed effect that safeguarding the Imperial Institution would have on the Japanese people’s will-to-fight. In the end, meaningful discourse enabled Allies to target the enemy’s will separately from their means, enabling conditions where subduing the Japanese will required the Allies not to fight.     

Review Article: Total War or Traditional War

MICHAEL ADAMS. Napoleon and Russia. London and New York, NY: Hambledon Continuum, 2006. Pp. xxiii, 596. $34.95 (US); ROY ADKINS and LESLEY ADKINS. The War for All the Oceans: From Nelson at the Nile to Napoleon at Waterloo. London: Little Brown, 2006. Pp. xxix, 534. £10.9g, paper; ALESSANDRO BARBERO. The Battle: A New History of Waterloo, trans. John Cullen. New York, NY: Walker & Company, 2005. Pp. xii, 340. $16.00 (US), paper; DAVID A. BELL. The First Total War: Napoleon's Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It. Boston, MA and New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin, 2007; dist. Markham, ON: Thomas Allen. Pp. x, 420. $39.95 (CDN); CHARLES ESDAILE. Napoleon's Wars: An International History, 1803–1815. London: Allen Lane, Penguin, 2007. Pp. xvii, 621. $55.00 (CDN); ROBERT HARVEY. The War of Wars: The Epic Struggle between Britain and France, 1723–1815. London: Constable & Robinson, 2006. Pp. xxx, 962. £10.00, paper; FREDERICK W. KAGAN. The End of the Old Order: Napoleon and Europe, 1801–1805. Cambridge, MA: De Capo Books, 2006. Pp. xxiv, 774. $40.00 (US); MICHAEL V. LEGGIERE. The Fall of Napoleon: I: The Allied Invasion of France, 1813–1814. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Pp. xvii, 686. $35.00 (US); THIERRY LENTZ. Nouvelle histoire du Premier Empire: II: L'effondrement du système napoléonien, 1810–1814. Paris: Fayard, 2007. Pp. 835. €30.00, paper; ADAM ZAMOYSKI. Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna. London: HarperCollins, 2007. Pp. xviii, 634. £25.00. Reviewed by Philip G. Dwyer     

Now More than Ever: Terrorism,Asymmetric Warfare,and the Just War Tradition

Abstract

For more than fifteen hundred years, the just war tradition has provided guidance about when wars should and should not be fought. It has also incorporated standards for how wars should be fought. The tradition rejects the claim that all use of force is evil, suggesting instead that in some circumstances the failure to use force is wrong. War is never desirable, but sometimes it is both right and necessary. The just war tradition helps us understand when this is true. The tradition developed to help control conventional warfare, but it is no less applicable to the terrorism and asymmetrical warfare prevalent in contemporary conflicts. In a world where American military power is unmatched, any opponent's best option is some form of asymmetric warfare. Such warfare is frustrating to conventional forces and tempts them to respond with an "all's fair in war" approach that is both morally wrong and militarily counterproductive. Neither pacifism nor "realism" deals adequately with the challenges of twenty-first century warfare. Only the just war tradition provides clear guidance about when and how it is right to go to war and places this in the context of establishing a peace based on justice and equity.     

"Just War" and the Contemporary Art of Justifying the Unjustifiable

Abstract

This article assesses the recent application of "just war" criteria by Charles Reed. It is clear Reed has uncritically supported Anglo-American power by omitting a great deal of counter evidence and by misrepresenting opposing views. Some consideration is given to the ways in which intellectuals can unintentionally support violence and power.     

Saddam Hussein,Islam, and Just War Theory: The Case for a Pre-emptive Strike

Abstract

America and its allies face a world that has become more and more dangerous with its weapons of mass destruction and a shadowy world of terrorists more than willing to use them. The wisdom of the past does not have the prescience or universal insight to deal with this new threat. America and its allies must change direction if they wish to respond to the challenge in an effective manner, even if it means employing policies that seemed dubious in the past. The state is called to protect its citizens in a Machiavellian world, filled with depravity and compromise. The church is called to submit to the superior wisdom of those who have the special intelligence, experience and expertise to handle the current crisis.     

The New Militia: War,Politics and Gender in 1750s Britain

This article explores the role of gender in the debates around the creation of a ‘New Militia’ at the beginning of the Seven Years War. The humiliating military defeats of 1756 had precipitated a cultural crisis that focused upon gender distinctions, as the ‘effeminacy’ of men and the ‘boldness’ of women threatened to collapse the social order. In this context, militia service was presented as a cure for the nation's moral, social, political and sexual ills. This article therefore examines a range of textual and visual sources in order to suggest that certain mid‐Georgian political worldviews were fundamentally gendered, since they were predicated upon martial masculine virtues of the citizenry.     

Review Article: Cold War or Cold Peace

JOHN LEWIS GADDIS. The United States and the End of the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp. ix, 301. $34.95 (CDN);

MICHAEL J. HOGAN, ed. The End of the Cold War: Its Meanings and Implications. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Pp. xv, 294. $13.95 (us), paper;

JAMES CHACE. The Consequences of the Peace: The New Internationalism and American Foreign Policy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Pp. xii, 221. $32.50 (CDN).