Just and Unjust Wars - a Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations - Essay Example

? Guerilla Warfare Warfare has existed since time immemorial. Destroying generations over the political issues became an art over the period. Many philosophers and writers have tried to explain the benefits of countries warring against each other either openly or through guerilla war but repeatedly they have failed to do so. However, thinkers and philosophers did define warfare, as an armed conflict among the political communities; on an international level over certain disagreement. Guerrilla warfare is a form of irregular war where trained armed civilians use military tactics in the actions such as raids, ambushes, and petty warfare to dominate or intimidate the traditional army and abruptly withdraw after the attack. The following paper presents an argument and demarcates the line between the Just warfare and guerilla war. in order to present the debate the paper will first explain the Just Warfare theory so that it becomes convenient to contradict the guerilla warfare. Before the paper progresses in to the details of ethics and sheds light upon the guerilla warfare analysis, it is important to understand the Just warfare theory and its ethics. The just warfare theory is a Christian philosophy that emphasizes upon the three factors: 1. Killing humans is inhumane. 2. States shoulder the duty to protect their citizens and defend justice. 3. Protection of an innocent life, defending the moral values often requires violence and force. However, it is imperative to mention that the Just war theory lays down conditions in order to judge the reasons before a war is waged. The Just war theory was deduced by Christian theologians but is open those who believe in other religions or does not believe in any at all. However, the theory states clearly ethics and guidelines that may allow a war to take place. Nevertheless, it is important to highlight here that the theory does not in any way justify war neither is it for individuals. Despite the fact, it is not for the individuals to use the theory to decide if the war should be necessitated, however the individuals can use to weigh the pros and cons of war and if they should take part in it or not. Moreover, theory was formulated not to provide a justification for the war rather it was deduced to prevent war and give states the reason to resolve conflicts in an amicable manner instead picking weapons. The doctrine of just war very easily deceives a person in drawing connotations that war is justified and hence a good thing. Nevertheless, doctrine strictly speaks against waging wars and highlights that under certain circumstances it can be waged. However, it is the entire theory that implies that war is a lesser evil but it remains evil even if it is waged under duress for the purpose of protection (BBC). The historic literature available suggests that after World War II most of the states have remained in conflict with each other, whereas some had avoided the idea of war altogether some still engage in warfare. State versus state wars still occur, one of the prime example of the war is Anglo-American invasion of the Iraq; wars of such kind have become rare in today’s world. Most of the wars have become internal conflicts. Most of the states today have to face stateless enemies, which are later labeled as faceless attackers. These kinds of wars are referred to as Guerilla wars. These well-trained attackers attack the conventional army leaving abruptly after the attack. Usually, the conventional armies are not prepared for such attacks. Nevertheless, most of the countries that indulge in such wars are those who do not afford to fight openly or lack the tactics to fight the enemy (Robinson). Although, waging war has ethics and requires approval from the UN many countries fight covetously by deploying their men in different states that spread terrorism by killing innocent people. One such war was waged against the approval of the UN in 2003, which is commonly known as the invasion of Iraq. Although, the statistics suggest that most of the armed conflicts among the countries have decreased and the UN has deployed their men for peace making; the army operations against the enemies continue under cover in the form of operations. This implies that most of the countries will not wage war against each other openly but in the form of military operations will continue to fight and war. Most of the wars are not waged with weapons rather it is faced through technology, terrorism, net war, cyber warfare, military operations, insurgency, and counter insurgency. It is usually referred to as the irregular warfare or asymmetric warfare. Despite the fact that the theory of just war emphasizes that the war must be waged on criteria and hence, must be fought with dignified ethics, yet the guerilla warfare focuses on the fighting the enemy beyond the theory however, remaining within ethics that they have set for themselves. This is essential to highlight that most of the military operations is to spot the enemy, which is a difficult task because most of the enemies live among the civilian population. Thus, often times in order to kill the enemy populations have to suffer, which is later labeled as terrorist attacks. Such military operations break the rules of the theory of Just War (Robinson). In his book Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, Walzer argues ethics of war produces moral dualism. He emphasizes upon the permissible circumstances to enter the war and ethics that must be conformed too while in the state of fighting the enemy, which he refers to as the ‘legalist paradigm’. The other question that he highlights in the book is ethics that are for the soldiers to abide by while fighting in a war which he refers to as the ‘war convention’. At the core of the convention theory and the legalist paradigm lays the theory of human rights. By this he surfaces the argument that every individual has a right to live the life they prefer to live; this is emphasizes the western values of liberalism. However, the rights that he sheds light upon are not individualistic rather his emphasis is upon enjoying the rights remaining within the boundaries of the communities and groups that have developed over a period. Furthermore, Walzer argues that the communities or states that provide their political, bureaucratic, and legal regulation should be left alone in the times when they want to develop a common life. Moreover, he says that every state has the right to protect their citizen’s rights and deter aggression to provide liberty to the population to live their lives safely. However, he says that if state feel threatened and the territorial’s rights are violated by the military than the state has the right to use aggression, force, and request for the aid from other countries (Michael). Keep in mind the literature, it can be analyzed from the above information that guerilla warfare although, is a form of war yet it breaks meaning and essence of the Just War theory. The military operations performed in the countries take the innocent lives as well. However, on the contrary it does abide by one of the rules of the just war theory which emphasizes upon protecting their own citizens against violation of rights. What still remains a question is that if guerilla wars are fought due to political reasons and protection of the citizens who takes the defensive mode and who attacks? It is important to carry out rigorous research in order to shed light upon the fact that will enlighten the public about the main culprits. Works Cited BBC. Just War - introduction. 2013. 7 March 2013 . Michael, W. "Just And Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illusterations." Journal of Law and Religion 16.2 (2001): 1013-1017. Robinson, P. "chapter 1: introduction: Ethics Education for irregular Warfare." 2013. ashgate. 7 March 2013 . Read More