RoR: Forum

Sherman-Like Tactics

It is interesting to compare the martial philosophies of the Union Generals Sherman and McClellan in the Civil War. McClellan was cautiously conservative with both the lives of his own men and those of the Rebels. he refused to commit himself to all out attack under any circumstances. He wished to preserve the South as is so that it might be welcomed back into the Union as if nothing had happened. In the battle of Antietam his tactics lead to 23,000 casualties in one day, more than 9 times the number killed or wounded at D-Day. Had he pressed his advantages he could have captured or routed Lee's army of Northern Virginia. He was satisfied to have the enemy retreat rather than to defeat it.

Sherman, after capturing Atlanta, said that he wished by destroying Southern property to make it clear to Georgia and the South that their army could not protect them. He ordered civilians evacuated from Atlanta. He ordered military and industrial targets burned. Most of the city ended up burning. B ut not with its inhabitants in it. And much of the blame for the destruction of the city can be laid at the feet of the retreating Rebels who blew up their own munitions train in civilian areas.

It was commented on that in his march to the sea, Sherman's forces killed very few, and that at most it seems likely that two rapes occurred. Homes were pillaged and property was destroyed wantonly. But the South ended up yielding, did it not?

All out war seems much more merciful than restrained warfare.

Ted Keer

Post 1

Friday, April 25, 2008 - 5:22pm

This is a very well written article, one to which I am largely sympathetic. But I'm not convinced by one of its points. Dennis quotes Smith as follows:

“Rothbard is correct to maintain that to use force against innocent people, even in the course of legitimate self-defense, would constitute a violation of their rights…”(p. 31)

and replies:

But how does Rothbard define “innocent”? Smith suggests the following criterion: “people who are in no way responsible for the situation in which I find myself…”(p. 31) Rothbard (along with Smith) clearly implies that this would apply to any non-combatant, including the citizens of the aggressor nation-state who actively or passively support their government and help to keep it in power. In truth, of course, the only innocent citizens would be those actively engaged in opposing their leaders’ aggression—and they would likely be supportive of any foreign government which rises up to put an end to that aggression.

Why are citizens not actively in engaged in opposing their leaders' aggression guilty of that aggression? They may be too intimidated or powerless to actively oppose it. That doesn't make them co-conspirators, does it?

Post 2

Friday, April 25, 2008 - 8:24pm

No Moral Blackmail

The principle is so strong, clear cut, and so evident that I do not understand why people do not use it as the moral acid it is. In the case of aggression, any responsibility for the violation of rights lies at the feet of the aggressor and the aggressor alone. If a criminal takes a hostage only he bears responsibility for what happens to that hostage. In war, the aggressor alone bears responsibility for what happens to innocent bystanders. Of course one can't simply go about slaughtering whom one likes as "innocent bystanders" simply because a war exists somewhere. But plausible retaliatory actions taken in good faith do not need further hand-wringing theoretic defense. This principle puts such bleeding heart namby-pambism to rest.

Post 3

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 12:32am

Ted,

I agree with you totally.

Sherman’s strategy of “total war” was designed to demonstrate the consequences of resistance through the massive destruction of property—the burning of Atlanta, destroying rail lines, ruining plantations, et al—to teach southern “aristocrats” the nature and meaning of the war they had caused and to eradicate any lingering belief that victory was possible. During the six weeks of his Georgia campaign, Sherman’s army suffered only 103 deaths and 428 injuries (plus some 278 missing in action). Compare that to 100,000 casualties in the battles of Gettysburg, Second Bull Run and Antiedam as the result of General McClellan’s nearsighted strategies of withdrawal and delay.

Sherman ordered his army to destroy buildings from which they were fired upon, despite the threat to civilians, blaming the Confederate generals for hypocrisy and cowardice for hiding behind noncombatants. He had the moral courage to refuse to sacrifice his own soldiers to arbitrary rules dictated by the enemy.

Sherman was unquestionably a hero in his day.

The principle is so strong, clear cut, and so evident that I do not understand why people do not use it as the moral acid it is. In the case of aggression, any responsibility for the violation of rights lies at the feet of the aggressor and the aggressor alone.

Exactly right. This is one key principle Smith and Rothbard completely miss. If your government initiates aggressive action against a foreign country, it has already violated your rights by placing your life in jeopardy. This is the utter folly of suggesting that the absolutism of individual rights prohibits retaliation. To suggest that the country under attack has no right to protect itself is to deprive that nation’s citizens of their absolute right of self-defense. No one has legitimate claim to a right that deprives others of their rights. The citizens of the aggressor nation are no longer living under a government that protects rights—it has now become the violator of their rights. And that is the problem of the people living under that government. To ignore this is a complete moral inversion and the sanction of the victim on a grand scale.

Post 4

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 1:26am

Bill,

Thanks for the nice compliment. I really appreciate the kind words.

Why are citizens not actively in engaged in opposing their leaders' aggression guilty of that aggression? They may be too intimidated or powerless to actively oppose it. That doesn't make them co-conspirators, does it?

Short of being an invalid in a rest home (or something comparable), no citizen can claim he is powerless to actively oppose an aggressor state. I could certainly understand that someone who was in a totally vulnerable situation like that might choose to be silent rather than risk the consequences of speaking up, and I could sympathize with that. Even then, such a person may have to suffer the consequences of a victim nation’s military retaliation. They cannot claim that their disability exempts them from such consequences. As far as rights are concerned, they are in exactly the same situation as someone who does actively oppose their tyrannical government. They cannot claim that their “absolute” rights morally obstruct the other nation from acting in self-defense.

Merely feeling intimidated would not render a person innocent, however. No doubt the majority of those in the German resistance were fearful of the storm troopers. One of the primary tactics of any dictatorial regime is to instill fear among the citizenry. Those who knuckle under to such fear become accomplices of the government’s aggression, and to that extent, they are co-conspirators. A country’s civilian population enables the government of that nation to take whatever action it takes; they are not a separate entity existing independently from the government. They bear some degree of moral responsibility for their government’s actions. Consequently, only dissidents, freedom fighters and children can legitimately claim moral innocence.

Post 5

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 2:28am

Dennis Hardin wrote in his article:

As it turns out, we don’t have to wonder what Smith would say to the author who decries the Objectivist obsession with the “pernicious” influence of altruism, because the author happens to be George H. Smith. The above quote can be found in an article by Smith in Liberty magazine (May, 2008), entitled “Thinking About War.” (p. 32) The article consists of a detailed critique of another article—“ ‘Just War Theory’ vs. American Self-Defense,” by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein, published in The Objective Standard (Spring, 2006).

Thank you, Dennis, for writing such a fine analysis.

It reinforces my decision years ago not to renew my subscription to Liberty exactly because of specious arguments like those of Smith polluting its pages.

Post 6

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 3:53am

Thank you, Dennis, for writing such a fine analysis.

Thanks, Luke. Needless to say, I am very gratified by the positive response to my essay.

I share your dismay with Liberty. The publisher seems to be fond of featuring Ayn Rand's name on the cover, but the content rarely reflects any genuine grasp of Objectivism.

I would strongly recommend Craig Biddle's The Objective Standard to anyone who loves Ayn Rand's ideas. I look forward to every issue. The quality of the wrtitng is consistently superb.

Post 7

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 4:56am

This looks like a good book on the topic:

The Morality of War

Brian Orend (2006)

Broadview Press

Post 8

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 7:48am

Dennis, great essay. After an initial position statement, I’ve some questions/comments …

=========
Position Statement:
The issue is, as Roark said, an issue between Individualism and Collectivism. On the Collectivist side, the thinking that underlies Altruism will be exploited -- because it must be exploited in order for any grand Utopian schemes to get off of the ground (this is because of human nature).
=========

Questions/Comments:
=========
He thus equates just war theory with any and all theorizing about the morality of war, which seems odd, since it is often contrasted with pacifism, the belief that war of any kind is morally repugnant. Pacifists reject the very notion of “just war,” typically on moral grounds. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, just war theory is a Western perspective on the ethics of war with its origins in Greco-Roman philosophy and Christian thought. That strikes me as a much more accurate description of its meaning.
=========

Okay, but the American way of doing things – where we have rights against our government – is also claimed to have these origins. And, by staking that claim to these origins, critics say that the American way of doing things isn’t universally a good way to do things, but relativistic (because of its relativistic origins). So, on the one hand, it seems that Just War Theory can be criticized due to its specific origins but, on the other hand, there’s criticism of “limited government” per se, which follows the exact same line of reasoning (even down to the self-same origin).

So please “come out with it,” Dennis. Do/would you, yourself, criticize Just War Theory due to having “specific” origins? While I don’t agree with your statement about Smith (“equating just war theory with any and all theorizing …”), neither do I agree with your seeming resolution, which appears to “tag” Just War Theory to such abominable things as “Christian thought.”

I’d say that Just War Theory is more objective than that kind of an analysis affords.

=========
But how does Rothbard define “innocent”? Smith suggests the following criterion: “people who are in no way responsible for the situation in which I find myself…”(p. 31) Rothbard (along with Smith) clearly implies that this would apply to any non-combatant, including the citizens of the aggressor nation-state who actively or passively support their government and help to keep it in power. In truth, of course, the only innocent citizens would be those actively engaged in opposing their leaders’ aggression—and they would likely be supportive of any foreign government which rises up to put an end to that aggression.
=========

Great point.

=========
For Rothbard, individual rights are absolute, and hold “regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression.” (p. 31) That would mandate respecting the rights of the citizens of an aggressor state.
=========

Not necessarily so. It’s too rationalistic to think that way. I have tried to make a great case here on RoR that there are 2 key factors of Individual Rights:

(1) the Rights themselves (which are absolutes)
(2) the exercise of the Rights (which is relative)

=========
… no one can make legitimate claim to rights which necessitate the abrogation of the rights of others …
=========

Yes, because any “legitimate claim to rights” would depend on absolutism (universality).

=========
Smith comments that, contrary to some critics, “there is considerable evidence that [Ayn Rand] would have endorsed their major theoretical conclusions…” (p. 31) This leads Smith to question whether Rand’s own views on the conduct of war were consistent with her theory of individual rights. Brook and Epstein, needless to say, “do not even consider [this] possibility…” Of course not, George. All Objectivists are brain-dead zombies who accept everything Ayn Rand ever said as scripture. Very clever of you to have picked up on that.
=========

I’m not sure where you stand, Dennis, when you are making fun of Smith’s thinking here. For instance, do you think “Rand’s own views” were inconsistent? Do you think that Brook & Epstein’s (B & E) views are inconsistent with Rand’s? Or were you simply going on an off-topic tangent to poke fun at how folks wrongly criticize Objectivists as Randroids?

Rand’s views were fine. I count as one of the “some critics” here. You can’t take B & E at their word and then interject Rand as a stand-in for the source of their espousal of ideas.

=========
He complains that he cannot discern what specific account of just war theory the authors are discussing: The contemporary form, or the ‘generic’ version that encompasses “every just war theory from Augustine to the present day.”
=========

This is a confounding issue. I’ve never seen a line-by-line cross-examination of the limited propositions of Just War Theory. Such a line-by-line cross-examination wouldn’t be hard to do – even if there were a few different versions of Just War Theory (which would make for a few different line-by-line cross-examinations). I estimate the amount of work needed for this task to be about 2 man-hours. Has it ever been done? It’s easier to undercut the whole process of Just War Theory by staying as abstract as possible, but my point is, is that it’s really not all that much more work to examine the limited concrete propositions, either.

You’d have to stay abstract because you merely wanted to, not because time and energy limit you from dealing with less than a dozen concrete propositions. Do B & E even explicitly state the limited Just War Theory propositions? If they do, do they examine them?

=========
And this Objectivist obsession prompts the following spurious conclusion, according to Smith: “It seems that the failures of the Bush administration in dealing with terrorism are owing to its adherence to the principles of just war theory, which have imposed altruistic restraints on measures that are required for the defense of the United States…” (p. 32)

This last sentence seems to be particularly telling: It is as if Smith wants to deny that altruism is the underlying explanation for our current foreign policy, and that Objectivism offers the solution. Smith’s criticism about painting with a broad brush is his way of undermining the real point of Brook and Epstein’s article--that our national leadership’s adherence to just war theory effectively amounts to altruism in practice.
=========

First of all, if this was the “real point” of B & E’s article, then I would hope that they would’ve stated as much. Articles are best when their “real point” is stated. Also, the idea of using the decisions of NeoCon reformer, GW Bush, as an example of altruism holding our safety back is bogus. NeoCons, like all other collectivists, rely on altruism for their grand Utopian schemes (see position statement above). You can’t blame Just War Theory – because of its ‘inherent altruism’ – when your scheme (in the first place!) depends on altruism; when your scheme depends on altruism whether Just War Theory existed or not!

This is a case of the pot calling the kettle “blacker” (in order to exonerate itself from its own faults).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 4/26, 7:53am)

Post 9

Saturday, April 26, 2008 - 1:02pm

Ed,

Thanks very much for the compliment. And for your very thoughtful comments. You obviously devoted some time to reading and thinking about what I wrote, and I want to return the favor.

The problem is, I just turned on C-SPAN and realized that the LA Times Festival of Books is happening at UCLA today. Not only that, but Ariana Huffington is taking questions on her latest masterpiece—Right is Wrong! Wow! I might actually get the chance to see Ariana in person! Woo Hoo!

So I’ve got to get going or I might miss my big chance…

Seriously—and I assure you that last comment was anything but serious—I will respond at some length as soon as I can give your post the time it deserves.

Post 10

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 12:14pm

Ted,

=========
All out war seems much more merciful than restrained warfare
=========

The relevant point of this statement hinges or depends on the assumption that -- if given the choice -- current U.S. leaders would have chosen an alternative to the status quo. I have reason to believe that current U.S. leaders would not have used nukes -- even if the U.N. had explicitly given them their blessing. This makes talk of Just War Theory something like an out-of-context storm-in-a-teacup (a diversionary topic).

Ed

Post 11

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 12:39pm

In Iraq, there have really been two wars, the overthrow and the occupation. The overthrow was in effect all-out war, and was over within two months. We then stuck around to play nation builders.

The ideal situation would have been to remove Saddam in the first Gulf War and left his generals in charge to rule the South with the independence of Kurdistan recognized in the North. This might have taken a few extra months and the placement of a military base in Kirkkuk. Alas, the point is academic.

PS I stopped buying Liberty once they responded to 9-11 with glee as our fault and payback time. The editors don't hate tyranny in America, they hate America.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 4/27, 12:49pm)

Post 12

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 4:49pm

Dennis I like most of your article but I would like to address your response to Bill:

Short of being an invalid in a rest home (or something comparable), no citizen can claim he is powerless to actively oppose an aggressor state.

And I would add to that a child would also be powerless. But regardless it seems you agree then their would be people powerless to act, and how one could hold them morally responsible for an aggressor state that they can do nothing to stop is a peculiar ethical standard. Otherwise could I hold Dennis Hardin morally responsible for the altruistic war in Iraq and the deaths of our soldiers because he is passively supporting the war? I don't buy it. I prefer Ted's post 2 as a better explanation for the defense of our rational self-interests. When Bill asks what about citizens who are powerless to stop their oppressive government, I would answer as long as reasonable precautions were taken the only party that is responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in an aggressor state are the aggressors that initiated force to begin with. But I can't accept that civilians unable to act in a totalitarian state to stop their own aggressive government is responsible for their own demise.

Post 13

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 6:39pm

Epistemological Reductio ad Absurdum

I agree. It is not necessary or even epistemologically possible to consider whether every resident of rest home X is "innocent" or not. It is not relevant. Wars are conducted between nations. The aggressor nation can be surrender, sue for peace, or even dissolve. The disposition of individual alien citizens per se is not relevant in the pursuit of victory against the aggressor.

Post 14

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 10:24pm

Ed,

The following is mainly in response to post #8:

Note: In view of your post #10--“talk of Just War Theory [is] something like an out-of-context storm-in-a-teacup (a diversionary topic)”---I will have to take your “great essay” comment with a pillar of salt. But thanks, anyway. I guess.

Regarding your position statement, I think it’s absolutely true that altruism typically serves as an ethical means for collectivist-Utopian ends. Just War Theory promotes collectivism by imposing restrictions on the moral right of individuals in a free nation to protect the value of their lives, and by advocating that a victim nation sacrifice its’ soldiers and jeopardize the freedom of its citizens in favor of some “greater good.” It devalues the lives of the individuals in a free state by nullifying or minimizing the critical distinction between aggressors and victims.

Ed: So please “come out with it,” Dennis. Do/would you, yourself, criticize Just War Theory due to having “specific” origins? While I don’t agree with your statement about Smith (“equating just war theory with any and all theorizing …”), neither do I agree with your seeming resolution, which appears to “tag” Just War Theory to such abominable things as “Christian thought.”

Reply:

I’m not quite sure what you’re asking. My only intent was to clarify the precise meaning of the term ‘Just War Theory,’ and to differentiate it from any and all study of war from an ethical perspective. Just War Theory refers to a specific school of thought about the ethical nature of war, and encompasses a variety of viewpoints with certain general principles in common (good intention, good outcome, proportionality, et. al.). It should not be confused with alternative ethical perspectives. To equate Just War Theory with the application of ethical principles to war is to discredit any opponents of that specific school, in much the same way that advocates of altruism like to imply that egoism does not count as a valid way to think about morality.

I would not criticize a theory strictly based on its origins. Much of John Locke’s thinking on natural law and natural rights was dependent on religious ideas. Calvinist teachings regarding the salvation of the soul were largely responsible for the rise of individualism and the capitalist work ethic. The modern concept of romantic love appears to have started with the medieval doctrine of courtly love, a “spiritual” view of passion between a man and a woman which derived from Christian views of the impurity of sexuality. Even Ayn Rand considered herself to be on an equal historical footing with the theologian Thomas Aquinas. The origins of a theory can often be helpful in understanding a theory, but the current validity of any theory must be evaluated on its own merits. Just War Theory could well have completely distanced itself from Augustine, but has not done so.

Ed:

Quote: "For Rothbard, individual rights are absolute, and hold 'regardless of the subjective motives for the aggression.' (p. 31) That would mandate respecting the rights of the citizens of an aggressor state.

Not necessarily so. It’s too rationalistic to think that way…

Reply:

I think we are in agreement here. My choice of words may have been confusing. I did not intend to fault Rothbard for arguing that rights are absolute and should always be respected, but for his conclusion that this means a victimized nation cannot retaliate. As I indicated elsewhere in the essay, the retaliating nation is not violating the rights of the citizens of the aggressor state. It is their own government which has done so. Given their government’s initiation of force, the citizens of the aggressor state can only appeal to their own government to cease and desist. Their rights give them no moral standing to criticize the retaliation.

Ed: I’m not sure where you stand, Dennis, when you are making fun of Smith’s thinking here. For instance, do you think “Rand’s own views” were inconsistent? No.

Do you think that Brook & Epstein’s (B & E) views are inconsistent with Rand’s? No.

Or were you simply going on an off-topic tangent to poke fun at how folks wrongly criticize Objectivists as Randroids?

Reply:

It was not a tangent, old chum. My comment was consistent with my underlying theme of defending Objectivists from foolish, unwarranted attacks.

Ed: Rand’s views were fine. I count as one of the “some critics” here. You can’t take B & E at their word and then interject Rand as a stand-in for the source of their espousal of ideas.

Reply:

Who needs a stand-in? Smith brought up the issue of Rand’s viewpoint on war. Brook and Epstein make no such reference. You can read my comments on Rand’s views here.

Ed: ... I’ve never seen a line-by-line cross-examination of the limited propositions of Just War Theory… Do B & E even explicitly state the limited Just War Theory propositions? If they do, do they examine them?

Reply:

I thought I made clear that Brook and Epstein do precisely this. You can see for yourself here.

Ed: First of all, if this [“that our national leadership’s adherence to just war theory effectively amounts to altruism in practice”] was the “real point” of B & E’s article, then I would hope that they would’ve stated as much….

Reply:

I never suggested that they didn’t. Relevant quotes from the article:

“The ultimate embodiment of Just War Theory…is the present overall foreign policy of President Bush: the ‘Forward Strategy of Freedom’….”

“By preaching self-sacrifice to the needs of others, Just War Theory has led to the sacrifice… of the greatest nation in history for the sake of the worst nations today.”

Ed:…the idea of using the decisions of NeoCon reformer, GW Bush, as an example of altruism holding our safety back is bogus. NeoCons, like all other collectivists, rely on altruism for their grand Utopian schemes (see position statement above). You can’t blame Just War Theory – because of its ‘inherent altruism’ – when your scheme (in the first place!) depends on altruism; when your scheme depends on altruism whether Just War Theory existed or not!

Reply:

Holy Zeitgeist, Batman! That sounds almost Hegelian. No one is blaming Just War Theory, per se. Theories are not entities that act independently of human beings. George Bush is an evangelical Christian and an altruist, and he needs a theoretical foundation to justify his actions—to others and himself. By analyzing the ramifications of Just War Theory, Objectivists are trying to expose those foundations and destroy them. Bush does not call what he is doing “altruism.” He calls it the “Forward Strategy of Freedom.” But it is clearly based on Just War Theory. And if people see the unspeakable destructiveness such theories lead to, they can challenge them.

And hopefully begin to understand that the underlying ethics is not only anti-life but a recipe for national suicide.

Post 15

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 10:54pm

John:

When Bill asks what about citizens who are powerless to stop their oppressive government, I would answer as long as reasonable precautions were taken the only party that is responsible for the deaths of innocent civilians in an aggressor state are the aggressors that initiated force to begin with. But I can't accept that civilians unable to act in a totalitarian state to stop their own aggressive government is responsible for their own demise.

Apparently you did not read my response to Bill very carefully, since I end with the comment that “only dissidents, freedom fighters and children can legitimately claim moral innocence.” Only such people—along with those who are severely ill—can disavow moral responsibility. Bill does not say “powerless to stop” the government; he asks about people who are “powerless to actively oppose it.”

Otherwise could I hold Dennis Hardin morally responsible for the altruistic war in Iraq and the deaths of our soldiers because he is passively supporting the war?

If I do not qualify as a dissident with respect to the war in Iraq, I have no idea how you would define the word “dissident.”

I prefer Ted's post 2 as a better explanation for the defense of our rational self-interests.

You are confusing the issue of moral innocence and right of retaliation. They are entirely separate. We retain the right of retaliation, even against those who may be innocent by the above referenced standard. I indicated before my agreement with Ted’s second post, but that is beside the point of moral innocence or culpability.

(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 4/27, 11:33pm)

Post 16

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 11:26pm

Ted,

It is not necessary or even epistemologically possible to consider whether every resident of rest home X is "innocent" or not. It is not relevant.

I clearly stated in my essay that the question of moral innocence is an entirely separate issue from the victimized nation's right of retaliation:

It is their own criminal government—not the defending state--that is violating their rights, and that includes any retaliatory force by the non-aggressor. Their government is as much their enemy as it is the enemy of the nation acting in self-defense—and they have the moral responsibility to oppose it.

The disposition of individual alien citizens per se is not relevant in the pursuit of victory against the aggressor.

The question of moral innocence definitely is relevant. Given a choice of alternate targets—and provided it was consistent with victory strategy—it would make no sense to aim a missile at a rest home unless it was being used as a shield for enemy soldiers.

Brook and Epstein:

“That said, if it is possible to isolate innocent individuals…without military cost, they should not be killed; it is unjust and against one’s rational self-interest to senselessly kill the innocent…”

Post 17

Sunday, April 27, 2008 - 11:29pm

Dennis,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. As for my compliment, it was genuine -- even integrated with my storm-in-a-teacup comment. An essay isn't just great if you agree with it, its greatness is more of an objective matter than that kind of thinking affords.

In fact, agreement with an essay should probably only remain a minor factor in evaluating its greatness. An essay is artwork, and Rand talked about not necessarily agreeing with artwork -- but still appreciating how skillfully-honed it was. Your essay brings key things to light, it clarifies things -- no matter what side of the debate I may come down on on these key issues.

I'll respond to your reply after a few days.

Ed

Post 18

Monday, April 28, 2008 - 11:18am

Dennis, it looks like we agree in essence. I don't think that John or I was advocating attacking "innocent" targets willy-nilly. The choice comes down to the concrete case and battlefield tactics. In some cases, we do intentionally have to take out innocents, such as Saddam's human shields. But in such cases these are matters of military science, the facts on the ground, the concretes of that war. The principle that the guilt for the plight of innocents lies at the feet of the aggressor is enough. I have not looked deeply ionto "just war theory." I always assumed that it meant that there is a theory that war could be just. If "just war theory" is simply a list of arbitrary limits by which we hamstring ourselves, then it is indeed the altruistic nonsense that has been asserted. It certainly seems plausible that just war theory has hamstrung us in Iraq. I could not imagine that GWB's naivete alone is enough to explain the principled way we have gone about bungling that war for five years.

Post 19

Monday, April 28, 2008 - 12:02pm