Limited Force and the Triumph, Crisis, and Schism of Just War Thinking

2021 ◽  
pp. 55-86
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Brunstetter
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Just War ◽  
Moral Justification ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
Analytical Philosophy ◽  
Special Forces ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Moral Framework ◽  
Historical Tradition ◽  
Moral Frameworks

Just war, oft-lauded as the authoritative moral framework to address the decision to go war and the ethical permissions this might grant, has seen the meaning of its principles mired in controversy and debate in the post-9/11 era. From calls to reclaim the historic tradition to the need to re-negotiate the terms of the orthodox stance or embrace revisionist insights drawn from analytical philosophy, critical reflections on the major wars showcased competing claims about what just war thinking should be. Where does limited force fit into the story? In answering this question, the chapter exposes a major lacuna in just war thinking by highlighting the moral and strategic dilemmas of limited force—limited strikes, Special Forces, no-fly zones, and drones—in the build-up to the major conflicts that animated just war debates of the post-Cold War era. Viewing the wars in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and the broader fight against Al Qaeda through the lens of limited force provides a new angle from which to analyse perennial debates about when to go to war and what victory looks like. Doing so exposes important limitations of existing just war moral frameworks related to concerns about escalation from limited force to war and punishment as a moral justification. Harvesting cues from the historical tradition, the chapter concludes by introducing five types of punishment that contain insights relevant to discerning the just and unjust uses of limited force.

scholarly journals The Taliban and the Crisis of Afghanistan

2010 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 101-103
Author(s):  
Francis Robinson
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Great Powers ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
State Structure ◽  
The South ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Limited Success ◽  
History Of

The latest estimate by Afghan expert Gilles Dorronsoro (International HeraldTribune, 15 September 2010) states that no state structure remains in 80percent of Afghanistan’s districts, that the Taliban are rapidly filling the vacuum,that the NATO surge in the south has failed, and that the allies shouldnegotiate a settlement with them in order to achieve what assurances theycan about discouraging the presence of al-Qaeda before it is too late. Thisbook explains why such a limited success is the likely outcome of NATO’sattempt to build a working central Afghan state. It contains essays by ten leading scholars in the field who met at a conference in 2004. Most of thepapers have been extended to a cut-off date of 2007.The book sets out to answer several questions: Are the Taliban, usuallyconsidered a militantly traditionalist movement, in fact a new phenomenonin Afghan history? Are they no more than a foreign creation, an instrumentof Pakistan’s geopolitical interests in a post-cold war world? At the sametime, given their utopian theology that looks back to an imagined period ofearly Islamic purity, should they be seen as essentially “medieval” and “antimodern”?Are these sufficient characterizations of this extraordinarily effectivemovement, or should more attention be paid to other factors, such as thelong history of state-society relations in Afghanistan and how they haveinteracted with the great powers? ...

scholarly journals What is really military ethics (and what they think it is in the west)?

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 35-54
Author(s):  
Aleksandar Jokic
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Professional Ethics ◽  
Just War ◽  
Applied Ethics ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Military Ethics ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
Current Production

In this article the author considers a recent proposal to understand ?military ethics? as a species of the genus ?professional ethics?. This contention is rejected on the grounds that ?professional ethics? are not a matter of ethics but policy, and it is argued that ?military ethics? properly belongs to applied ethics, as a branch of moral philosophy instead. The article proceeds by offering an account of the notion of ?reflexivity in normativity? in order to argue against the practice of using ?just war? theory as a moral doctrine. A distinct feature of the current production in military ethics by Western scholars and publicists is their reliance on ?just war? theory. Two considerations are offered aimed at ending this practice. First, the author uses Pierre Bourdieu?s distinction between ?activism in scholarship? and ?activism with scholarship? to demonstrate that the post- Cold War uses of the ?just war? theory could amount only to pseudo-scholarship. Second, and most disturbing, the author shows how this practice has two unsettling consequences: regarding the ad bellum (moral) justice, it leads to the decriminalization of aggression, the supreme crime in international law; and regarding the in bello (moral) justice to the decriminalization of actual war crimes committed by the ?good guys?.

Introduction

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-26
Author(s):  
Daniel R. Brunstetter
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Just War ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Special Forces ◽  
Moral Framework ◽  
General Plan ◽  
The Status ◽  
Just War Tradition

Limited force (vim) is different from war (bellum). Setting up and maintaining no-fly zones, conducting limited strikes, Special Forces raids, and the use of drones outside the “hot” battlefield have a different feel, seemingly falling below the threshold of war. They are different in scope, strategic purpose, and ethical challenges. While scholars tend to evaluate limited force according to just war principles, doing so misses considerable ethical precision and nuance. This lacuna warrants reformulating, reimagining, and recalibrating the just war framework and its principles better to understand the permissions and constraints of limited force. This chapter locates the pursuit of a moral framework of limited force, sometimes called force-short-of-war or jus ad vim, in the broader debates of the just war tradition. It poses three questions that set the tone for the wider inquiry. How are the moral concerns posed by using limited force different when compared to law enforcement and war? How does the ethics of limited force fit into broader debates about just war? What would a framework of the just and unjust uses of limited force look like? The chapter defends the choice of methodology—following in the footsteps of Michael Walzer’s turn to casuistry—as a commitment to the experience of using limited force, which entails discerning the plausible goals, engaging with how people talk about the various measures of limited force, and how they judge its use. Finally, it relates the status of the debate about vim and lays out the general plan of the book.

Part 2 The Post-Cold War Era (1990–2000), 44 The US Strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan—1998

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cannizzaro Enzo ◽  
Rasi Aurora
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Terrorist Attacks ◽  
Al Qaeda ◽  
Evolutionary Perspective ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The Third ◽  
The Us ◽  
Cold War Era ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Self Defence

This Chapter focuses on the aerial strikes of the U.S. against Afghanistan and Sudan in 1998, in response to terrorist attacks against the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and in Kenya, attributed to Al Qaeda. The events and the reactions thereto are presented in the first two sections. The third section is devoted to the assessment of the legality of the US strikes. In particular, the authors will discuss the qualification of the strikes as a form of pre-emptive self-defence. The last section contextualises the 1998 strikes in an evolutionary perspective. In the authors’ view, these interventions have constituted a trial run for the doctrine of pre-emptive war, fully developed by the US Administration after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In Defense of Realism: A Commentary on Just and Unjust Wars

1997 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
pp. 19-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Hendrickson
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Just War ◽  
Just War Theory ◽  
Political Community ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Political Realism ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
State Security ◽  
Moral Reality ◽  
Moral Arguments

A significant portion of Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars is an argument “against realism.” While Hendrickson applauds Walzer for his examination of the just war tradition, he nevertheless asserts that Walzer has characterized the tradition of political realism in a misleading way. Not simply the moral atheism it is portrayed to be, realism recognizes the moral reality of war while emphasizing state security and independence as the most important factors for the protection of citizens and the continuity of the political community. Indeed, Hendrickson identifies many realist aspects of Walzer's own moral arguments. He takes issue, however, with Walzer's treatment of intervention, self-determination, and the legitimate aims of war, stating that Walzer's framework is exceedingly permissive and ambiguous in these areas. Hendrickson concludes that the use of such a just war theory may lead to significant problems in the post-Cold War world.

The ‘New War’ on Terror, Cosmopolitanism and the ‘Just War’ Revival

2008 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Dexter
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
International Law ◽  
War On Terror ◽  
Just War ◽  
Humanitarian Intervention ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
American Century ◽  
Cold War Era

AbstractThe post-Cold War era has seen the return of the ‘good war’ and a move away from legal pacifism – the control of war through international law – to ‘just war’ theorizing. This article is concerned with the re-legitimization of warfare witnessed within the post-Cold War security paradigm that is being justified via humanitarian claims. It aims to highlight the difficult relationship that has developed since the commencement of the Bush administration's ‘war on terror’ between the cosmopolitan beliefs of those who have long argued for legal and legitimate humanitarian intervention, and the cosmopolitanism being espoused by the neo-conservatives of the Bush administration and the Project for the New American Century.

Vietnam's Post-Cold War Diplomacy and the U.S. Response

Asian Survey ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 832-847
Author(s):  
Allan E. Goodman
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Post Cold War ◽  
The U.S
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document