Classic Concept of the Just War - Essay Example

 Just War Orend defines war as intentional, actual, and widespread-armed strife between antagonistic political communities. War in the views of Orend does cover intercommunity, robbery or terrorism fights. However, many cases of war have been witnessed in many nations (group of people sharing similar beliefs) as well as states (governments) mainly due to political disagreements and aspirations. A nation may indulge in war for gaining liberation and self-rule, separate from other members of the country. Orend observes that a state may also indulge in war for defending its territories to achieve internal and inter-boarder peace. Orend believes that for war to be justified, it must engage use of weapons and be well organized and arranged in advance before strike. Orend defines a just war as an intentional, actual organized and armed attack between aggressors. Just war theory is based on two points of view; classic and contemporary just wars. Schall reports that theorists like the Father Webster and Mr. Cole insist that for a war to qualify as just, it must base on classic concept and should not involve evil actions like fighting the perceived innocent and noncombatant individuals. Father Webster and Mr. Cole believe that a justified war should transpire through certain criteria. The contemporary concept of just war permits armed attack under the claims of self-defense by a country. The contemporary concept of just war recognizes permission granted for coercion to be based on the defense of the individual state and the collective world. Contemporary concept of just war also proposes international support to the state subjected to attacks by the aggressor. The contemporary concept of just war argues that international community can merge to execute collective defense to a member state facing attack from internal militia who get support from foreign aggressor. The contemporary concept of just war advocates for use of military force in intervening cases that involve serious abuse of human rights (Johnson 33). This argument was passed to be a moral cause of just war waged against the former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The contemporary concept of just war further argues that the just war should not be fought in a manner that exempts the attack and harm of the noncombatants. From this argument, the proponents of contemporary concept stood to rebuke the air bombing dropped during the war against Iraq, which harmed many noncombatants (Johnson 34). Contemporary concept of just war allows the military troops to breach the laws of right conduct in war when overwhelmed by the opponent superior forces (Johnson 35). The Iraqi militia forces when resisting the new Iraqi government employed this principle of just war. The contemporary concept also justifies a war conducted against a state perceived to bear threats to the aggressor and the entire UN. This perception led to the collective synergy of the UN and Bush Administration in conducting disarmament attack against Saddam Hussein. The contemporary concept further argues that any killing conducted during war is wrong and can only be exceptional under sufficient justification. The classic concept argues that provoking just war is permissible to a political community that enjoys peace in its surroundings but faces danger of attack from the aggressors. A responsible political authority is permitted to use armed force as tool perceived to the only mean offering protection to citizens and ensuring peace in a war threatened state. The classic concept of just war injustice and the threats linked to injustice are the basic moral problems that need to be addressed. The use of force in accomplishing just war is considered harmless under the classic point of view. The classic concept of just war argues that the measure of morality of force depends on the one using it and the reason behind the use of the force (Johnson 36). Classic concept justifies war when based on just cause and the right intention for provoking the war (Johnson 36). Under the classic concept, force is evil when used to attack a political community ruled with justice and peace. The classic concept of just war argues that a just cause of war can be viewed in the line of conducting war in retaliation of an already conceded evil. This principle was applied in structuring war against Iraq when it defied the international laws that directed its disarmament and instead used the country’s resources in furnishing military power while suffocating the citizens. The attack projected against Saddam Hussein’s regime, was morally conducted under the classic concept of just war considering Saddam’s collaboration with the Al Qaeda terrorist group that threatens the peace of the world (Weigel). The classic concept of just war argues that leaders in the political elite hold the moral authority of planning and triggering war by setting the military force in action. According to the classic concept, the failure by political elite to approve war perceived as the last resort to the safety of the civilians translates to crime act and therefore unjustified. In that order, it was morally right for the United Nations Security Council to proclaim war against the regime of Saddam Hussein that operated under ignorance of human rights and the UN peace deal. Furthermore, the classic concept of just war argues that a state should engage in war after determining its likeliness to achieve victory (Orend). The aggressed should organize its war mechanisms in a way projected towards total destruction of the aggressor’s weapon and strategies in order to protect innocent citizens against possible retaliatory attacks from the combatants. In the case of Iraq, the UN Security Council and Bush administration fought a moral war after ensuring total destruction and paralysis of the Iraqi combatants. The classic concept of just war argues that the aggressed state or organization planning to conduct war has to instruct the commanders of the military troops to ensure maximum protection of human rights in by protecting the wellbeing of the civilians (Wiegel). The UN soldiers who offered basic needs and health care to the noncombatant civilians morally applied this practice in the Operation Iraqi Freedom. The classic concept further argues that force and lethal chemical and biological weapons should be used whatsoever the circumstance. The classic concept of just war argues that the armies participating in war should observe the rules of mala in se that prohibits use of weapons or ammunitions that pose danger the military. In addition, the classic concept of just law argues that the ousted and captured armies of the aggressor states or group should not be set to fight against its members or face maltreatment. The classic concept of the just war argues that when the aggressed state or organization has won the battle against combatants; peace and settling of civilians need to be ensured before aggressed military troops leave the land of war. Classic concept also requires the invading state or organization to ensure perfect achievement of just cause of attack and set a stable government to rule over the civilians. Furthermore, classic concept views a morally fought war as one that witnesses the contribution of the invading group in the rebuilding of the scattered economy of the aggressor. The Iraqi war was morally fought considering its end that saw collective efforts of the invading forces towards rebuilding of the Iraqi economy as well as establishing a stable government and restoring peace and sanity (Weigel). Work cited Orend, Brian. War. 2005. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. SCHALL, James. Why Some Horrors Must Be Stopped by 'Just War'. 2011. Web. 25 Nov. 2011. Weigel, George. The Just War Case for the War. 2003. Web. 25 November 2011 from Johnson, James. The war to oust Saddam Hussein: just war and the new face of conflict. Lanham. Rowman & Littlefield Publishing, 2005. Print. Read More