Michael Walzer wrote, in 1992, (Walzer, Michael, But Was it Just?: Reflections on the Morality of the Persian Gulf War, "Justice and Injustice in the Gulf War", pp. 1 - 17, edited by David E. DeCosse, New York: Doubleday © 1992) that “In one of its modes, just war theory would also abolish war by the (theoretically) simple method of calling unjust wars “crimes” and just wars “police actions.” He goes on to say that there is no police force (no multilateral police force) capable of organizing and deploying that power, nor will there ever be, so that the question of just war will still need to be argued out, case by case and country by country.
But ... wouldn’t that be great? No more war, just like that!
OK, it does sound a bit silly, but think about it for a while. It’s clear to me that the way we talk about things affects the way we think about them; a rose by any other name might smell as sweet, but more people buy dried plums than prunes.
One of the problems I have with the whole anti-war movement is that we are currently at war with Iraq, without yet invading. After all, in the ninth century, an economic blockade enforced by troops was called a siege; now it isn’t. It used to be an act of war, now it is a prelude to war, or an alternative to war. The question isn’t between war and peace, because any reasonable definition of peace is not likely, not soon, not in the Gulf. The difference is between tactics, methods of warfare, and scale—all of which are important, but difficult to discuss in a war/peace slogan match.
(Digression: I don’t mean to entirely dismiss those who do believe that we should not have a war of any kind, who are in favor of lifting sanctions, removing all our troops, lifting the no-fly zone, and relying on moral suasion to prevent any further aggression. I don’t agree with it, but it certainly is a coherent point of view, and one outside the above paragraphs’ sightlines, if only because I can’t really find it in the global discussion. End digression)
Anyway, I’m enjoying imagining the rhetoric in a world where the word “war” wasn’t used, and we had to discuss, debate, and defend our actions without it. We could, of course, have a police action on terrorism, which would be nice, but might not persuade us that we need to invade anybody. We could have re-enactments of the Crime between the States, and movies about World Crime II (or, more rarely, the Great Crime). Young men would have their mettle tested in police actions; perhaps no more so than when walking the beat. We could talk about our fears of an India-Pakistan crime, or perhaps an India-Pakistan police action, or both at once. And, of course, your 2004 Washington Expos would be first in police action, first in crime, and last in the National League.
Not that Our Only President likes to use the word war, anyway, as he has no constitutional authority to declare war. He can declare a police action, though, and that’s where Your Humble Blogger stops for the day.
Thank you,
-Vardibidian.
You make a good point about economic blockades, though a number of other governments do see such actions as acts of war. We simply ignore their views, knowing that they are not eager to convert a slow siege into a rapid and plentiful expenditure of ammunition and larger ordnance.
This is not a new disagreement. Our economic actions against Japan in WWII were plainly incendiary to Japan, but we took Pearl Harbor to be an unprovoked and unjustified initiating attack.
This is where diplomacy is supposed to help. Countries announce that certain activities will be viewed as an act of war, providing fair warning to those who wish to avoid active military conflict. But diplomacy’s role is all akilter in this new world order, and the United States views “fair” as meaning “whatever benefits us” while the rest of the world views “fair” as meaning something closer to its common dictionary definition.
On the distinction between a just war and an unjust war, it is convenient for an associated collection of historical events to be given a unitary name. If World War II was unjust for the Germans to engage in and just for the British to engage in (as could plausibly be argued), should it be called a crime or a police action? And what about changing historical perspectives which may turn what was perceived to be a just war into what we now perceive as an unjust war? Do we then need to change its name?
I certainly agree that it’s nice if words have meanings, and the word “war” has been mightily abused by the last several administrations. But if we take that word away from them, they’ll simply abuse the words “crime” and “police action”. Better to try to restore meaning to the public discourse, and ask people to develop the habit of thinking about what words mean, rather than hope that a narrower lexicon will somehow accomplish that.
I’m not sure I altogether agree that our use of ‘fair’ is that different from that of most other nations, who mostly use it the way we do, as meaning ‘whatever we can justify to ourselves’. Still, you make a good point that part of diplomacy is developing a common language, where not only proclamations but actions are likely to be understood in the spirit they are meant (even if such an interpretation is then rejected).
As I recall, this was part of Mr. Walzer’s point, that the discussion of justice in war is an fundamentally diplomatic matter, rather than a judicial or philosophical one. But it’s been two years, so I may well misrember the article entirely.
By the way, I hope you’re enjoying your jaunt through Tohu Bohu past; I’m enjoying going back to stuff I haven’t read in a while myself.
chazak,
-V.