Infinite MonkeysNote: Introduction and table of contents here.
The second criterion of Jus ad bellum is Comparative Justice.
Definition: Comparative Justice: While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other;
Evaluation - Afghanistan: Again, if we accept that the Taliban were strongly complicit in the 9/11 attacks, this one's pretty easy to justify. On our side, we experienced almost exclusively civilian casualties and a great deal of physical damage. The collateral damage to the Afghan people has been, by most measures, fairly controlled. We deposed the government, accomplished our goal, and are for the most part engaged in rebuilding.
Evaluation - Iraq: Not even close. Since Iraq as a nation was not complicit by any fair standard, and Saddam Hussein was not meaningfully complicit, our invasion and killing of thousands more civilians than we lost is completely unacceptable by Comparative Justice standards. The first Gulf War satisfied any "comparative justice" the Kuwaitis may have been entitled to, so our invasion and subsequent destruction was not justifiable by this standard.
Evaluation - Other: Our damage to other peoples and regimes has been fairly insignificant at this point.
Conclusion: While the Afghan invasion appears to satisfy the Comparative Justice requirements of Just War theory, the Iraq War does not even come close. It is Unjust according to these standards.
Next chapter: Legitimate Authority
Posted by RobbL at January 8, 2006 05:53 PM