Justifying Hell: My Just War Theory

"War is hell"
The coined phrase is credited to the Union General Sherman, but the idea of war being hell has been around as long as war has. Just google search "War Quotes," click on a link of your choosing, and read away. Can you find a positive, friendly, justifiable quote on the concept of war? Various quotes read from General George S. Patton saying, "The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his," to ancient Herodotus saying, "In peace, sons bury their fathers. In war, fathers bury their sons." Do these sound glorious and heroic? Glory, for one, seems to always be at the expense of someone else in war, an example being the latest Medal of Honor recipient Marine Sergeant Dakota Meyer. This brave soul's story can be found here as told by President Obama. It isn't pretty. Even with saving 36 lives, Dakota Meyer is still conflicted with receiving the medal, because he failed to save another four lives from the chaos. He received a glorious medal, but he did so by firing a 50. caliber machine gun into other human beings. I am not saying what he did doesn't deserve credit, it is amazing how he saved his fellow comrades. Only in war, though, is such renown earned from such turmoil.

Athletes foot? No, trench-foot.
Sorry to your appetite.
Case_of_trench_feet_suffered_by_unidentified_soldier_Cas_de_pieds_des_tranchées_(soldat_non_identifié).jpg ‎(640 × 372 pixels, file size: 41 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)

Similar hellish scenarios are found in all of the world's wars. Vietnam was full of gruesome booby traps, civilian casualties, and the Nanking Massacre. The first World War was host to disgusting trench warfare and, according to the academic Wikipedia, the cause of over 37 million casualties total.

Would you rather be shot by these?
from "http://gunczar.com/223rem.html"


Or:

Chopped with this?
credit to "http://en.9jcg.com/product_pages/view_products_page-i-3.htm"

Ancient wars do not get any better. Instead of bullets and distance between enemies, swords, axes, spears, maces and close proximity now 'grace' the battlefield. A common description of ancient battle could be being close enough to your enemy that you can smell his breath, while having to step over his destroyed gored body to move on to the next enemy. Victory is essentially who can stay standing the longest. Whole civilizations, i.e. the Spartans, devoted themselves to the factory of war. The Spartans nowadays are seen as a figurehead for strength, simplicity, and discipline, but imagine being on the other side of them in battle. If I was a Persian, per se, instead of seeing the aforementioned description, I would see imminent doom, pain, and bloodshed. 300 anyone? Gladiator? Kingdom of Heaven? They aren't romantic comedies, and they earn their R-rating for more than bad language.

Glorious? Or Hell?

300 Warner Bros. Studios

How can this be just?

Saving Private Ryan Paramount Studios

Michael Walzer, the author of Just and Unjust Wars, tries to pick apart wars and say that they can indeed be carried out 'justly' or with honor. He theorizes that there are three main components for a war to be 'Just.'

1) Jus ad Bellum or "right to war." There has to be a just reason for going into war, and the only just reason is to be defending one's self from invasion. There has to be innocent life in danger, and the entering of war is to protect these innocent lives. 

2) Jus in Bello or how to have justice in war. Walzer believes that to be just in war means to never take away innocent life. What goes on in war should stay between combatants, or the soldiers on both sides. Never should civilians be the target of the bloodshed.
3) Jus post Bellum is how to be just after a war has been conducted. What should a victorious nation do after winning? This new addition to the Just War Theory would say that there should be compensation to the victims who incurred major losses, that both sides need to be held accountable for war crimes, not just the losing side, and that civilians shouldn't have to suffer from punitive punishments that inhibit them to a decent standard of living.

Concentrating on Jus in Bello, Walzer also uses examples of how soldiers fail to pull the trigger in some circumstances when the enemy seems too human to be on the field of battle. My personal favorite is from British soldier Raleigh Trevelyan. He recounts a story in WWII when a German soldier was so struck by the beauty of the morning that he openly walked in the line of fire, oblivious to his danger. When asked by a soldier whether or not the German should be shot, Trevelyan replied that he shouldn't shoot the man on account he looked too similar to his own self. Ask Sergeant Chesteron, however, and his thoughts were that "we should have killed the fellow, since his friends would be told precisely where our trenches were."

And this last part is what I want to focus on, that being 'just' can lead to more death in the end. Notice that Walzer never has been to war. Neither have I, but I am also not writing books on how to conduct it, either (a blog will suffice). War is hell; it is simple. In hell, certain guidelines and precautions shouldn't necessarily be taken into account before every shot is fired, before every mission is given the go. I am not advocating for the 'spoils of war' or rape and slavery, but I am vouching for the fact that civilian lives shouldn't be protected at all costs. Yes, the civilians are not at fault, per se, for the entirety of the war. They do, however, belong to a nation that is destroying another nation. And if targeting civilians saves more life in the long run, then so be it. Total loss of life is more important to me than who's lives are being lost.

My example of choice is the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. It was gruesome. It was disgusting. It was hell. But, it saved lives. This may seem impossible, but I remember taking World at War in High School, and what I learned is definitely shocking to hear. According to death projections, and these were from the documentary World War II in Colour, an eleven hour flick that dominated my semester enrolled in the course, if the Allies were to have invaded Japan, Allied casualties would have been between 1.7 to 4 million, while Japanese would have been between 5 to 10 million. Under the very 'best' circumstances, that is 6.7 million casualties combined, and under the worst, 14 million casualties. What was the horrific death toll from the two atomic bomb droppings? Somewhere between 150,000 thousand to 240,000 thousand lives lost. Which would you take, 14 million or 240,000 thousand casualties? These atomic bombs were aimed directly at civilian hubs of life, making them unjust, yet they saved lives in the long run. Sure, something could have been hammered out diplomatically, but all indications pointed at just more war.
And war is:

Hell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

My personal Just War Theory wants to replace Walzer's Jus In Bello. I advocate, that instead of not being allowed to target civilian lives, that total loss of life has to be taken into count the most. Whatever ends up causing the least amount of death is about as 'just' as war can get, to me. I agree with Walzer's first and third steps, but the middle layer just doesn't sit right. I am not some sadistic civilian slayer, but I feel that total life should be taken into account more so than who is being killed. I end with some questions. Would you rather bomb 50,000 soldiers, knowing that with their death the war is over, or 30,000 innocent civilians, knowing that their death will also end the war. Who's lives are more at fault for the war? What makes your decision more just? Does 'just' even fit in at all?

Personally, I dearly hope I never have to face these decisions.