"And it must be understood that a prince, and especially a new prince, cannot observe all those things which are considered good in men, being often obliged, in order to maintain the state, to act against faith, against character, against humanity, and against religion." - Niccolo Machiavelli.
PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON HAS MADE A LIFE TIME habit of skirting along the edges of the permissible and the impermissible, trying to get what he wants without the burden of accountability. He avoided service in Vietnam by stringing along his draft board, not by open forthright refusal to serve. He has always filled his public statements with so many emotive half-truths that it is necessary to parse carefully his words to realize that nothing was really said. Clinton's verbal precocity has forced us to carefully reconsider the precise differences between simple misleading statements, falsehoods, and perjury.
An unintended side benefit is that Clinton has forced us to ask real substantive and self-examining questions. Last year, we opened up our yellowing copies of The Federalist Papers, unexamined since college, to consult Alexander Hamilton's words about impeachment.
This curious pattern continues as Clinton tries to pursue a war in Kosovo without the cost of actually committing ground troops. Instead of re-reading Hamilton, we must consult Cicero, Saint Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas to appreciate what constitutes a just war.
Early Christians were pacifists. The force of necessity probably induced Christian intellects to consider conditions under which war is justified. War necessarily involves the risk of large-scale killing and destruction. Hence, the thresholds that must be crossed to justify war are corresponding high. Although just war theory arose from a Christian perspective its tenets are more broadly applicable. Both the initiation and implementation of the war must meet strict criteria to be considered just. How does the war in Kosovo measure up to these tenets?
Initiation of War
Last Resort. War must be the last resort after all other less drastic means have been totally exhausted and must undertaken in a spirit of reluctance. In the case of action in Kosovo, NATO and US reluctance to act are legend. Indeed, it could be argued that excessive reluctance may have been counterproductive and given Milosevic the notion that NATO and the US were not serious. In the case of Kosovo, it can truly be claimed that the initiation of war was the last resort.
Legitimate Authority. One tenet of just war theory is that war can only be initiated by a legitimate authority. This is a rather vague limitation. What constitutes a "legitimate authority?" Does NATO have the authority to invade another nation? Does this mean there can never be a just war of liberation from purely indigenous forces? Can a rebel group be considered a legitimate authority?
| Here's the follow-up discussion on this article: | View all related messages |
For a complete listing of article comments, questions, and other discussions related to Frank Monaldo's Conservative Politics topic, please visit the Discussions page.