|
FEATURE STORY | October 29, 2001
Defining a Just War
by Richard Falk 
 have never since my
childhood supported a shooting war in which the United States was
involved, although in retrospect I think the NATO war in Kosovo achieved
beneficial results. The war in Afghanistan against apocalyptic terrorism
qualifies in my understanding as the first truly just war since World War
II. But the justice of the cause and of the limited ends is in danger of
being negated by the injustice of improper means and excessive ends.
Unlike World War II and prior just wars, this one can be won only if
tactics adhere to legal and moral constraints on the means used to conduct
it, and to limited ends.
The perpetrators of the September 11 attack cannot be reliably
neutralized by nonviolent or diplomatic means; a response that includes
military action is essential to diminish the threat of repetition, to
inflict punishment and to restore a sense of security at home and abroad.
The extremist political vision held by Osama bin Laden, which can usefully
be labeled "apocalyptic terrorism," places this persisting threat well
outside any framework of potential reconciliation or even negotiation for
several reasons: Its genocidal intent is directed generically against
Americans and Jews; its proclaimed goal is waging an unconditional
civilizational war--Islam against the West--without drawing any
distinction between civilian and military targets; it has demonstrated a
capacity and willingness to inflict massive and traumatizing damage on our
country and a tactical ingenuity and ability to carry out its missions of
destruction by reliance on the suicidal devotion of its adherents.
There are three types of responses to the attack, each of which
contains some merit and enjoys some support. None of them are adequate,
however.
I. ANTIWAR/PACIFIST APPROACH The
pacifist position opposing even limited military action overlooks the
nature of the threat and is thus irrelevant to meeting the central
challenge of restoring some sense of security among our citizenry and in
the world generally.
Also, in the current setting, unlike in the civil rights movement and
the interventionist conflicts of the cold war era (especially Vietnam),
antiwar and pacifist stands possess little or no cultural resonance with
the overwhelming majority of Americans. It may be that at later stages of
the war this assessment will prove to have been premature, and even now
Quaker, Christian, Gandhian and Buddhist forms of pacifism offer a
profound critique of wars. These critiques should be seriously heeded,
since they lend weight to the the view that the use of force should be
marginal and kept to an absolute minimum. Certainly the spiritually
motivated pacifist witness can be both inspirational and instructive, and
help to mitigate and interrogate militarist postures.
Another form of antiwar advocacy rests on a critique of the United
States as an imperialist superpower or empire. This view also seems
dangerously inappropriate in addressing the challenge posed by the massive
crime against humanity committed on September 11. Whatever the global role
of the United States--and it is certainly responsible for much global
suffering and injustice, giving rise to widespread resentment that at its
inner core fuels the terrorist impulse--it cannot be addressed so long as
this movement of global terrorism is at large and prepared to carry on
with its demonic work. These longer-term concerns--which include finding
ways to promote Palestinian self-determination, the internationalization
of Jerusalem and a more equitable distribution of the benefits of global
economic growth and development--must be addressed. Of course, much of the
responsibility for the failure to do so lies with the corruption and
repressive policies of governments, especially in the Middle East, outside
the orbit of US influence. A distinction needs to be drawn as persuasively
as possible between inherently desirable lines of foreign policy reform
and retreating in the face of terrorism.
|