Michael Walzer and "Jus in bello"

Source: betterworldbooks.com

A few weeks ago, during the GSI assigned readings and presentations, we discussed Michael Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. In this reading, the author argues that there are three separate components to war: Jus ad bellum (Justice to War), Jus in bello (Justice in War), and Jus post bellum (Justice after war). Walzer states that these three components are separate, meaning that you can have a justifiable reason for entering war, and still fight and conduct yourself unjustly during war. An example of this would be an American soldier killing a surrendered German soldier during World War II. 

However, I do not completely agree with Walzer's argument that the three components of war are entirely separate. I believe that, if a nation has a justifiable reason to engage in warfare with another nation (they have Jus ad bellum), then, to a certain degree, it makes all actions during war (Jus in bello) justified, as long as the actions are committed with the intention and goal of defeating the enemy. 

To illustrate my argument, a perfect example of this occurs in the movie Saving Private Ryan, which documents a group of U.S. soldiers' quest to find, and bring home, a U.S. soldier following the death of his three brothers during World War II. In this movie, the soldiers capture a German soldier who they want to kill rather than take as a prisoner. However, Corporal Upham, their translator, convinces them to spare the soldier and they decide to let him go, assuming that the next U.S. troop will pick him up and deal with him. Of course, that does not happen and the German soldier proceeds to kill numerous additional American soldiers, including one from the group who decided to let him go. The scene of the German killing him can be seen below (warning: graphic). Later in the movie, Upham encounters this German soldier once again, and this time he makes the right decision and kills him. Nevertheless, I think it is clear that the better option would have been to kill this German soldier in the first place, which would have saved a countless number of American soldiers. According to just war theory, this action would certainly be considered unjust, but, as long as the reasons for entering war are justified (which they certainly were), then I would argue that it is just. The action would have helped America win the war and prevented further casualties.  

 

Source: youtube.com

Source: emersonkent.com

I think this issue connects to the dirty hands problem. Since taking the soldier as a prisoner wasn't an option, dirtying the hands was both necessary and justified in this case. I am not in any way trying to say that you should kill every prisoner of war. I am simply saying that certain actions should still be considered justified even when they do not adhere to the "Jus in bello" criteria. If "Jus ad bellum" is satisfied, then, in certain cases, so is "Jus in bello". What if the other side is conducting guerrilla warfare where they pose as women and children to get close enough to kill the enemy? Should you not fight back in kind because it is unjust? I would answer that question with a "No". If your reasons for entering war are justified, then so are your actions during it. What do you guys think? Are my thoughts crazy?