Just Wars

Some may associate defensive political violence with the political left since it focuses on protecting the poor and weak. But it actually has a lot in common with the defence policy of George W. Bush. Guantanamo and the Patriot Act can’t be defended, that goes without saying. And the reasons for going to war against Saddam Hussein were fraudulent. Bush was an extremist in many ways. But Hussein was almost comparable to Pol Pot. He had arguably killed up to 2 million people. Removing him from power was necessary, and in accordance with the main principles of just war theory.

Abu Ghraib and massacres of civilians are horrible, and the perpetrators should be punished hard. But the need to stop genocidal regimes or extremely tyrannical governments in countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Rwanda, Sudan and Kosovo can, from a purely utilitarian perspective, justify the risk that some soldiers may loose control and kill civilians.

Just wars demand, however, that intervening nations are capable of securing a lasting peace. The U.S. was clearly not prepared for all the problems they have encountered in Iraq. But it is still too early to declare that the decision to go to war was a mistake. Whatever the outcome, it was the duty of the international community to stop Saddam Hussein and thereby protect the Kurds and others who were the victims of one of the worst dictators in history.

You don’t have to agree with everything said above about the Iraq War to support LAW. We don’t care about your political, ideological or religious views as long as you agree that political violence can in some emergency situations be justified if it is based on the laws of necessity or self-defence.