Now that Congress has voted to approve another round of aide to Ukraine [to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars] it seemed like a good time to bring up St Augustine's Just War theory. I supported the war at first when i had just as soon Russia had never invaded Ukraine.
I recall Biden telegraphing to Putin he could make a small incursion into Ukranian territory. Still, i felt Ukraine had a right to defend itself.
It was an invasion and the West-especially the United States-pressured Ukraine to give up it's nukes;probably the one deterrent they had.
Billions of dollars later with no end in sight i started to question the prudence of continuing the support.
I feel that the support is only prolonging a war that Ukraine is likely to lose or that at least is causing losses too great to justify the war continuing without any negotiations.
I also don't see that the American people support the war. It's not a good idea to fight a war without the folks support; either that or you better make a solid case for it.
As for Putin and Zelensky i don't trust either of them.I'm no neo con but no pacificst either. War is a pretty big deal wouldn't you say? Our reps need to listen to us. We have a right to have our concerns addressed to before they make such a monumental decision like support for a war.
I thought this would be a good time to bring up St Augustine's just war theory.
You break it down into two groups; the criteria for going into war and the criteria for executing a war.
Jus Ad Bellum, the right to go to war, and Jus In Bello, the right sorts of conduct in war
Worth reading especially for the background information.
I'm only going to consider the criteria for going into war and see if our sending billions in support is justified according to St. Augustine's theory.
The Criteria
quoted directly from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory#Jus_ad_bellum
Competent authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war. "A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice. Dictatorships (e.g. Hitler's regime) or deceptive military actions (e.g. the 1968 US bombing of Cambodia) are typically considered as violations of this criterion. The importance of this condition is key. Plainly, we cannot have a genuine process of judging a just war within a system that represses the process of genuine justice. A just war must be initiated by a political authority within a political system that allows distinctions of justice".[54]
Probability of success
According to this principle, there must be good grounds for concluding that aims of the just war are achievable.[55] This principle emphasizes that mass violence must not be undertaken if it is unlikely to secure the just cause.[56] This criterion is to avoid invasion for invasion's sake and links to the proportionality criteria. One cannot invade if there is no chance of actually winning. However, wars are fought with imperfect knowledge, so one must simply be able to make a logical case that one can win; there is no way to know this in advance. These criteria move the conversation from moral and theoretical grounds to practical grounds.[57] Essentially, this is meant to gather coalition building and win approval of other state actors.
Last resort
The principle of last resort stipulates that all non-violent options must first be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. Diplomatic options, sanctions, and other non-military methods must be attempted or validly ruled out before the engagement of hostilities. Further, in regard to the amount of harm—proportionally—the principle of last resort would support using small intervention forces first and then escalating rather than starting a war with massive force such as carpet bombing or nuclear warfare.[58]
Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot, therefore, be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
Ok, what do you think?The Ukrainian War justiified if you apply these criteria?
Comments