Top Menu Left

Top Menu Right

Subscriber-only Content

This audio content is accessible only to current Audio or Premium subscribers. For access, login, subscribe or upgrade your subscription.

Get Access...

Subscriber-only Content

This ebook content is accessible only to current Ebook or Premium subscribers. For access, login, subscribe or upgrade your subscription.

Get Access...

‘Just War Theory’ Gets Further Entrenched in U.S. ‘War’ Policy

“Just War Theory”—the theory driving U.S. military buffoonery in the absurdly named “War on Terrorism”—is, in fact, an utter inversion of justice, which sacrifices the lives and limbs of American soldiers for the sake of enemy civilians and mystical savages. The even worse news is that this wretched theory is becoming further and further entrenched, as indicated by this article in the New York Times. (Thanks to Robert LeChevalier for bringing the article to my attention.)

The excerpts below require no comment, but when you’re through reading them and lifting your jaw from the floor, please read “‘Just War Theory’ vs. American Self-Defense.” If you’ve already read it, send the link to every active-minded person you know.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4—The United States Army and Marines are finishing work on a new counterinsurgency doctrine that draws on the hard-learned lessons from Iraq and makes the welfare and protection of civilians a bedrock element of military strategy….

The doctrine…cautions against overly aggressive raids and mistreatment of detainees. Instead it emphasizes the importance of safeguarding civilians and restoring essential services….

The current military leadership in Iraq has already embraced many of the ideas in the doctrine. But some military experts question whether the Army and the Marines have sufficient troops to carry out the doctrine effectively while also preparing for other threats.

The new doctrine is part of a broader effort to change the culture of a military that has long promoted the virtues of using firepower and battlefield maneuvers in swift, decisive operations against a conventional enemy.

The doctrine is outlined in a new field manual on counterinsurgency that is to be published next month….

The spirit of the document is captured in nine paradoxes that reflect the nimbleness required to win the support of the people and isolate insurgents from their potential base of support—a task so complex that military officers refer to it as the graduate level of war.

Instead of massing firepower to destroy Republican Guard troops and other enemy forces, as was required in the opening weeks of the invasion of Iraq, the draft manual emphasizes the importance of minimizing civilian casualties. “The more force used, the less effective it is,” it notes.

Stressing the need to build up local institutions and encourage economic development, the manual cautions against putting too much weight on purely military solutions. “Tactical success guarantees nothing,” it says.

Noting the need to interact with the people to gather intelligence and understand the civilians’ needs, the doctrine cautions against hunkering down at large bases. “The more you protect your force, the less secure you are,” it asserts….

As the manual is being drafted, the military has also revised the curriculum at its war colleges and training ranges to emphasize counterinsurgency….

[C]oncerns have grown that the Army may be raising a new group of young officers with little experience in high-intensity warfare against heavily equipped armies like North Korea.

“That is one of the things folks are a little concerned about,”…

Again, read “‘Just War Theory’ vs. American Self-Defense.” It identifies the cause of this insanity and explains what must be done to stop it.


Comments submitted to TOS Blog are moderated and checked periodically. To be considered for posting, a comment must be civil, substantive, on topic, and no longer than 400 words. Ad hominem attacks, arguments from intimidation, misrepresentations, off-topic comments, and comments that ignore points made in the article will be deleted. Thank you for helping us to keep the discussion intellectually profitable.