(Garraty, pg. 665) Wilson’s main reason for involving the United States in the war was to be included in peace talks following the end of the fighting. Had the United States not entered the war, neither the Allies nor the Central Powers would let the U.S. involve itself in the peace talks. Wilson knew that it was essential for the U.S. to be a part of these talks. The majority of statesmen thought that a victory on the battlefield was triumph enough but Wilson knew better than that.
Even if the outcome may leave countries economically unstable, produce wastelands and kill innocent people that does not mean all wars are fought over meaningless causes. There are several factors that are used to determine if a war is just. These requirements are the right intention, a legitimate authority declaring war, is a last resort, the war is proportional to the offense, and if there is a reasonable chance of success. In order for a war to be just it must follow the Just War Doctrine/Theory. There are two principles to the just war theory.
Political Realists clearly state that war is acceptable once it is in the state's best interest to do so, and once embroiled in a war, a nation must employ all methods to ensure that victory is the end result (Morgenthau 14). They believe that "war is an intractable part of an anarchical world system ("War"). And that it ought to be resorted to only if it makes sense in terms of national self-interest. While political realism is an intricate and highly developed doctrine, Political Realists assert that its core propositions center on a strong rejection of applying moral concepts to the conduct of international relations (Ibid). Political realists denounce the idea of applying morality when discussing the justifiability of war for two main reasons.
In the case of the War on Terror waged by the United States against terrorist attacks the argument of a last resort is debatable. Because the attacks have yet... ... middle of paper ... ...fists can be uneffective in a war minded society. If an aggressor is attacking with no opposition, one cannot rely on the morality of the aggressors to halt the attack. Intervention of the attacks would be impermissible by the standards of absolute pacifism, as it would contribute to the overall amount of violence. The absolute pacifist would become a martyr for their beliefs, and without opposing the aggressive force societies would be annihilated.
Instead, Bush needs to swallow his pride and except his unawareness of warnings and consequences, then informing the blindly persuaded citizens the poorly hidden truth. Eventually weapons of mass destruction will strike the U.S.A., and will be tragic. Until then the United States needs to make their decisions wisely and take more opinions into consideration before making the final decision of launching military action. Overall the United States should only pronounce war when the situation determines war is justified, rather than proceeding with war when there is no evidence backing up justification. Whether the war is for the protection of the United States and it’s alliances, or for oil and the spread of democracy, the United States needs to make decisions that would influence the future of the Nation in a positive way.
It’s hard to see the state as a whole to determine what a state is thinking when it goes to war, because it doesn’t look at the different levels of analysis within the government. It only sees the state in wanting a few things only which is power and security. Realism is the main idea behind the article, because it views the state as a rational actor and it looked at states only looking to engage in war and the reasoning why they do go to war. Glaser , C. L. (1997). The Security Dilemma Revisited.
to do good or to over come an overpowering evil) Â· The war must be a last resort (i.e. every non-violent way of solving the war must have been tried first) Â· The good the war will do must outweigh the harm Â· The war must be possible to win Â· The force used should be proportional to the situation. So many questions arise when you try to apply the just war theory to a war today. 'Who is a proper authority' 'What is a just cause' 'How do you decide whether a war is of good intention' etc. the thing is â€¦ who answers these questions?
Now that the basics of war have been covered, we need to dive deeper into how and why war starts. War is started by a difference in opinion. When you get to the very core of... ... middle of paper ... ...ur government and the governments of other countries, I can admit that war isn’t inevitable if someone takes it too far. However, I do believe that if our relations with other countries become stronger, we can avoid war and settle our differences in a non-violent way. For everyone who is pro-war, please consider this scenario: what if it was you on that battlefield?
The Bush administration’s newly proposed doctrine of pre-emption declares the right to initiate strikes against states that are deemed to be future threats against the US (2). Under the rules of just war, just cause is described as self defense against an attack in order to preserve innocent life, not pre-emptive strikes against possible dangers. The fact is, is that although the idea of attacking a nation that does not pose a threat today, but may pose one in the near future is as old as war itself, it completely goes against the precedents set forth by the just war theory(2).