Jared Knight

Mary Barker
April 20, 2016

A Look at Just and Unjust Wars

We live in an international world. One with many sovereign states seeking the best for
themselves. The International laws are weak and anarchic, leading to conflicts that can in many
instances lead to war. In Micheal Walzers book Just and Unjust Wars - A Moral Argument with
Historical Illustrations we discuss the possibility of a moral world within one of conflict. The layout
of what follows will be all in the atmosphere of my understanding of the purpose of Mr. Walzer
writing this book and what I think its purpose could be, the structure, hitting on the overall
themes I received while reading, with myself being one that is new at looking at and trying to
understand international relation and war in general. I will then to conclude with giving a look at
the questions that this book has left on my mind.

The Overall Purpose

In 1977 when this book was published there had been a few years since the Vietnam war.
Mr. Walzer writes in his the preface to the original print that he did not begin by thinking bout
war in general, but about particular wars, above all about the American intervention in
Vietnam. He goes on to explain the he didn't begin as a philosopher either. From what I have
been able to gather while reading this and discussing with coworkers about other books published

"1

during this same time, is the profound effect that the Vietnam war had had on the Americans
view of war, what was moral and what was just. I believe this is the main reason for the
underlying theme of this book. The grand question, what is moral in a place so often described
as hellish?

Structure
The book itself is divided into five parts. It begins with the moral reality of war. In this
section he looks at the realism of war. States are to act for themselves in ways that will be a
benefit to themselves. The ideas that hit me the hardest were in chapter two titled The Crime of
War In which he highlights was makes war Hellish. He explains that in the past people chose
to fight, to be mercenaries, or to flee from fighting all together. He uses tribes in Africa to
emphasis this point. He goes on to explain that war is not hellish when it is between two parties
that are willing and desire to be fighting. Those that find honor in fighting and dying in battle are
not in a hellish war. He explains that war becomes hellish when people are forced to fight. Those
that would otherwise be ordinary citizens in the nation living peaceably being forced to fight
bring hell into their lives. Living in constant worry and desire to get out of it. Taking choice away
is the way to bring hell in any situation.
I myself thought much about this as I read about this idea of war being hellish. If I was to
be forced to fight, I would have no better way of describing it myself. I would not want to be
forced to fight and potentially kill someone else and have someone else desiring to harm me over
something I wasnt even fully aware of or deciding of my own choice. I thought it was extremely
interesting that he added to the mix not only people not wanting to go to war but those that were

"2

convinced it was a duty to the nation or having nationalistic reasons, were also put in the category
having war be hell.
To summarize what this part emphasized to me was this. The crime of war was that fact
that people lost their rights to decide to have life or to have their life threatened. Those that were
willing and desiring battle didnt have hellish experiences, or at least not in the sense of those
desiring to be anywhere but there. The Crime is that of breaking human rights and causing
suffering. He also goes into the Rules of War. With the main emphasis on the war convention.
That is, rules that are equal on both sides. The main idea of where the war convention came
from was the separating of the bandits from actual legitimate fighting.
Part two is titled Aggression. It focuses on first the rights of all international communities.
They have the rights to their land and for the governments that they have on the land. At the root
of it all, the peoples choice is the most important. It goes into aggression, which is basically
anything that one state does against another negatively or seen negatively from the perspective of
the other. He also talks about when it is justified for a state to go to war. The words just and
justified gain presence in the rest of his book form this point on. The main question is, when is it
just for a country to go to war? Is it when they receive a threat or when they are attached. The
answer was a bit vague but rightfully so. It is a case by case answer. They should announce war
when they are feeling absolutely threatened. It is just for them to enter the war when they are
responding. It is said that it is never just to be the aggressor causing the war for any reason. He is
huge on the idea that we should look at every last option before taking the step into war. I agree.
Lastly in this section he talks about intervention. Should another country enter in to help
other countries. He gives an example of belief that there should never be a time when another
state enters in, because if the balance of power between two sides in a civil war are brought out

"3

of what the majority of the people want, the government or side that wins might not represent
the people or be developed as them solving their own issues. I think it is best to stop things such
as genocide or any huge injustice. Which he talks about later in the book. When a state should
stay neutral or enter in on one side.
Lastly, in this section he speaks of the end of the war and its importance. It is not good to
fight past and kill past what is necessary to end the war and reestablish peace. That should be the
aim of war. To reestablish the peace. Which means with different wars and people there requires
different actions. WWII would have to be ended differently than Vietnam. The key is to not stop
it before it can reach that peace. As in the case of WWI, where unneeded and extreme
punishments were placed they lead to a further lack of peace and suppression on the people after
the war.
Part Three is about the War Convention. In this, which is the most interesting part of the
book, the rules that we follow in war. The idea that morality can exist in war. This section left me
with the biggest question about it all. If one side is trying to beat the other. Why arent they going
to the extremes they need to be able to beat them? Bringing an all out war. It was brought up that
the way wars are fought and the methods found acceptable are brought by the people. What the
civilians accept is what is accepted in war or lied about. First of which is the distinguishing
between soldiers and civilians. When two sides are fighting, it is seen as just to kill the other
soldiers. But to kill civilians is off limits or to kill those that are surrendering. I thought it
extremely interesting that he states that prisoners of war have rights in prison. The right to try to
escape but not kill in the attempt.
He looks at if it is moral to perform sieges on cities or to set up blockades to starve out the
cities. I don't think over all he believed it was just unless they were allowed to leave the city.

"4

Because the cities are a civilian place it wouldnt be right to kill the innocent without giving them
the ability to leave. The tricky part in civilian safety came when guerrilla warfare came. When
the fighters became indistinguishable from the rest of the civilians and actually killed after posing
as civilians. That would be an unjust manner of warfare on their side because they are putting
the civilians as possible fighters. Causing deaths on them.
Another important topic was that of reprisals. Was it just to kill innocent because the
enemy did in order to deter the other from doing it again. He suggests that it is not just to do
things unjust because the other did. He talks much about a nation being unjustly brought into
the war still being held to a standard of morality in war. Shutting down the idea that the more
injustice placed on you doesnt mean you can be more unjust towards the enemy.
Part Four titled Dilemmas of war takes a look at winning and fighting well. That is to fight a
just fight. not going beyond to end the war. Not doing whatever you can to end it. Which he
speaks of while talking about supreme emergencies in this same section. Supreme emergencies, is
debated if one can use whatever form of fighting to balance out the emergency and take care of
the problem causing it. He would say it is best to find solutions that didnt break justice no matter
what.
As said earlier, he talks about neutrality and when a nation should be brought into the war.
Using illustrations from WWII. From it I think it is only necessary for a country to be brought in
when it is inevitable that they should join or their people would become attached themselves.
Otherwise, it is not just for a nations people to be forced to fight if they are trying to stay out of
the fight. For their lives to be taken for something they dont have any part of.
The most modern discussion and easily the most fear filled is about nuclear deterrence. It is
in the best interest of everyone on the earth that no nuclear weapons are used even in the

"5

slightest manner. It would surly bring a very undesired outcome. Best solution is for nobody to
have them, but because they do, it has to be a balance.
Part Five is titled The Question of Responsibility. This is an interesting section and one
that comes at the end of the war so it is fitting to come at the end of the book. He takes a look at
who is responsible for it all. Is it the soldiers who are doing the killing? What about the
commanders above them ordering it to be done? Or maybe the politicians sitting at their tables
deciding on it all?
It seems for the most part the soldier is free of the responsibility, unless they are taking
action where they could have opposed and not put themselves in extreme danger. They are
ordered and most likely would rather not be there in the first place. They are forced to kill. Any
unjust action a soldier takes would be on them if it was of their own choice. Those in command
would hold much of the responsibility of how things were fought. The overall war would be
placed upon the leaders.

Summary
Over all the book was extremely well written in my opinion. For one that is not well
versed in anything war related. This book has taught principles and then followed up each with
real life examples throughout. I went into it with not many questions but as I read I gained many
questions. Plenty of which were answered within the pages of the book. And as any good book
would do, it left me with larger questions that I am to keep searching for. For instance, can we
ever live in a world without war? These questions reach beyond these short pages. But this is a
good first step to looking at war, morality and how they can exist at the same time.

"6

Morality in war would be to allow choice. When ones life, freedom, or property is taken in
any way, morality stops.

"7