Military Actions by the US and NATO in Libya - Essay Example

Whether or not this situation counts as a just war has been discussed at length, with the conclusion pointing to the affirmative.

            According to a summary on the International Relations page of Mount Holyoke College, the just war principles are seven-fold. These can briefly be described as requiring a war to be fought as a last resort, declared by legitimate authority, fought to redress wrongs, fought with a reasonable hope of success, declared with a goal of peace, and must use proportional force while differentiating between civilians and combatants (Ferraro). At first glance, these guidelines are soundly followed. Bishop Howard Hubbard of Albany, writing on behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, found that the just war theory indeed saw no violations in the current conflict in Libya, but he also warned that the coalition must keep focused on its goal of protecting civilians. The mission, under the auspices of UN Security Council Resolution 1973, has a written purpose of establishing a ceasefire to defend civilians (US Bishops).

This satisfies two of the guidelines immediately, and the delay in beginning military action also suggests that all other options were exhausted. The wrongs being redressed were several accounts of violence against civilian targets by the Gadhafi regime, although loyalist forces also were attacking armed rebels. NATO, the US, France, and the UK all qualify as legitimate authorities, and thus another guideline is met, and in addition, they have a quite reasonable hope of success due to the combined strength. The remaining guideline in question is the use of proportional force. NATO’s overall capability of force far outweighs that of the Libyan military, a conclusion drawn from the simple logic of comparing the size of several nations’ militaries against that of Libya. However, the coalition forces are using restraint and thus have only used air and sea strikes while avoiding placing troops on the ground to directly overpower Gadhafi’s forces. Thus, the force is proportional and not overwhelming, as only enough to protect civilians is used, but not enough to topple the regime.

Some insist that the war in Libya is not just due to the ambiguity of the coalition’s goals. A Princeton professor pointed out in The New Republic that the war lacks supply ort of many nations around the world, including the Arab League and the African Union who desire more restraint. He also implied that there is no end in sight for this conflict, thus the action was made without proper planning. Finally, he believes that the humanitarian benefit of the war is not great enough to merit military intervention (Waltzer). However, a missing element in these statements is that the war, in being unviolated the Just War Theory. In no way does the professor argue that any principles are violated, and thus he fails to invalidate the intervention by those standards. Overall, although controversial, the coalition forces in Libya display complete but delicate adherence to the Just War Theory.