This War Shows the Weakness in Just War Theory

A good summary of Just War Theory and its problems, yet she does not offer any alternative.

I agree with Wally. Also, the problem is more it’s abuse than it’s validity. Governments will always justify war. Without the JWT it would just be easier.

In the book, Unbroken, there is a description of the differing experience of US soldiers in German (signed Geneva Convention) and Russian (no Geneva Convention) and then Japanese (no Geneva Conv). Quite stark. Conditions and death rates were HUGELY different.

The question before Israel is what to do with people who have NEITHER jus ad bellum NOR jus in bello. I guess that's the question for us, too, if we're going to help. Should we treat Hamas the way we would treat a Geneva Conv country?

In Vietnam, children as young as 13 were used as guerrilla combatants. That certainly pushed US soldiers in their responses.

Yes, VERY difficult questions.

I'd go even further than some here and say this shabby article is an embarrassment to the few decent points it does make.

Given her positioning on the issue, the lack of even a hint of an alternative theoretical framework isn't just a minor omission; it's one that undermines practically any attempt to construct an understanding of when war might be acceptable and when it is criminal.

The only conclusion we are left to draw is that she's opposed to any kind of theoretical framework at all, something closest akin to a species of postmodernism.

This is what we get from Christianity Today these days?

The lack of alternative is an issue, as is the fog of war. Right now there are questions about reports that can't be answered beforehand. If Israel does nothing, would this lead to a larger attack? No one knows, though I have a guess. How many of the alleged non-combatants are actually combatants since Hamas fighters don't wear uniforms? No idea. How many casualties in the Gaza are caused by Hamas munitions? We don't know, though we do know Hamas has disguised some as being committed by Israelis.

Just War is a good theoretical framework, but many of the real issues it seems to me aren't discussed either. In modern warfare between industrial countries are civilians building the implements of war still civilians or part of the war machine? What about militia training of civilians such as what was happening in Japan at the end of world War 2? What about leaders like Putin, why are they exempted but medieval warrior kings weren't? What happens when information leading to war turns out to be wrong, as inevitably sometimes it will be (not only Iraq, but the Zimmerman note that led to US involvement in WW1). And of course the big one, nuclear weapon and nuclear powers, particularly given Von Clausewitz observations on war, largely proven right in the first world war.

I wouldn't say rejecting Bellium Justum is a solution, but it still requires some significant updates. This article doesn't address the real issues.