Just War Theory

Americans have no great love for realism, so it shouldn't be surprising many today advocate the use of 'just war' principles. One of the problems, though, is that just as one can dismiss traditional realism for being outdated, so too can one dismiss just war principles on similar grounds. I think this is actually of greater consequence for just war theory, mainly because just war is primarily a prescriptive theory based on moral standards.

Legitimate authority - Someone should probably inform non-state actors, like terrorist groups, that they are not allowed to wage war. This is an obvious enough claim, but it has serious implications for many other just war standards.

Probability of success - The US cannot claim to wage just wars unless it has a clearly defined standard of victory. The probability of winning a 'War on Terror' is essentially zero. What are the standards of victory in Afghanistan? In the next intervention to prevent terrorism? Retaliation is not a legitimate goal in and of itself.

Proportionality - Starting any conflict against forces within a stable state that requires occupation, nation building, or the deployment of ground troops without the permission and aid of the local government is extremely vulnerable to the proportionality test. Civilian casualties are often going to be larger than enemy military casualties. Paradoxically, though, ending these wars once they've been started and mismanaged also fails the proportionality test, as power vacuums often claim more civilian lives than those of occupying Western soldiers.

Distinction - See legitimate authority.

Military necessity - Given the problems of distinction, are Americans really willing to sacrifice larger numbers of their own soldiers to minimize civilian deaths when the distinction between civilians and combatants isn't readily apparent?

Just cause for termination - Difficult, because the reasons we started the Iraq War and other conflicts will be very different from the reasons we will choose to stop them.

Public declaration and authority - Just war termination requires a legitimate authority to accept the peace terms. Given the lack of legitimate authority in declaring modern anti-terrorist wars, there will likely not be a legitimate authority to accept our terms.

Even Obama has tried to shake the perception that he would hesitate to use force "when necessary" (remember the Pakistan issue?). Really, there are very few American politicians who would actually pursue non-interventionism, and the vast majority of the rest still would prefer, in the American tradition, to have a foreign policy guided by strong moral underpinnings. The theoretical challenge of the 21st century "War on Terror" will be developing a moral framework that practically applies.