Walzer and War

Reading Just and Unjust Wars Today

Graham Parsons, Mark A. Wilson, Graham Parsons, Mark A. Wilson

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9783030416577
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Peace & Global Development
• Index: Politics & International Relations

This book presents ten original essays that reassess the meaning, relevance, and legacy of Michael Walzer's classic, Just and Unjust Wars. Written by leading figures in philosophy, theology, international politics and the military, the essays examine topics such as territorial rights, lessons from America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the practice of humanitarian intervention in light of experience, Walzer's notorious discussion of supreme emergencies, revisionist criticisms of noncombatant immunity, gender and the rights of combatants, the peacebuilding critique of just war theory, and the responsibility of soldiers for unjust wars. Collectively, these essays advance the debate in this important field and demonstrate the continued relevance of Walzer's work.

© The Author(s) 2020

G. Parsons, M. A. Wilson (eds.)Walzer and Warhttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41657-7_1

Begin Abstract

1. Introduction

Graham Parsons¹ and Mark A. Wilson²

(1)

Department of English and Philosophy, United States Military Academy, West Point, NY, USA

(2)

Ethics Program, Villanova University, Villanova, PA, USA

Graham Parsons (Corresponding author)

Email: [email protected]

Mark A. Wilson

Email: [email protected]

End Abstract

Why Walzer, Still

It is indisputable that Just and Unjust Wars has impacted the world to an extent rarely achieved by a single-volume, philosophical monograph. Its publication in 1977 is routinely described as a pivotal moment in the study of international relations and the conduct of war. During the 1950s and 1960s the influence of just war theory—the view that war ought to be guided by moral principles—had reached its nadir. The policy-making establishment in the United States generally rejected foundational moral commitments and instead embraced realism and the primacy of brute national interest. By and large, just war thinking remained alive only in theology programs and debates in Catholic social thought. While other works share responsibility for the reversal of fortunes of realism and just war theory during the last decades of the twentieth century, Just and Unjust Wars deserves the lion’s share of the credit. Almost single-handedly, Michael Walzer resuscitated just war theory and produced a widespread disavowal of realism in academia and policy-making circles. As David Luban testifies in the first chapter of this volume, “[In 1977], the need was urgent to set aside the emotions and anger that were tearing the country apart and reflect on Vietnam from a broader, more dispassionate, more philosophical, moral point of view. But before Walzer, I think few of us had any idea how to start.” Through Walzer’s singular influence, just war theory became the dominant framework for discussions of war within military, academic, and public arenas, as well as in international law. Any student, teacher, or researcher engaged in issues such as the ethics and law of war, terrorism, international relations, political sovereignty, humanitarian intervention, or insurgency is an inheritor of the discussions begun by Just and Unjust Wars.

And yet, in some fields there is great skepticism about the value or relevance of the book today. Particularly in philosophy, many scholars acknowledge the impact of the book and are grateful for the defeat of realism yet view the book mainly as the representative of a misguided, even poor, approach to the ethics of war. As a colleague said to one of us in an attempt to dismiss the importance of engaging with the book today, “Walzer’s been refuted.” Over the last twenty-five years or so, a school of thought has emerged that has built itself around a rejection of a central tenet of Walzer’s theory—the moral equality of combatants—and some of its associated commitments. Known as “revisionist” just war theorists, these scholars have tried to develop a systematic ethics of war that is purged of a Walzerian attachment to the moral equality of combatants.¹ In this way, there is an anti-Walzerian spirit built into the identity of this movement; Just and Unjust Wars is precisely what they are committed to “revising.” It is in light of such views that a defense of the present volume seems necessary.

We admit that Just and Unjust Wars has flaws. One of us even thinks the theory it expounds is fundamentally incoherent.² Moreover, we acknowledge that the revisionist attack on the moral equality of combatants is powerful and has produced valuable reassessments of just war theory. Nevertheless, we think reengaging with Just and Unjust Wars remains highly valuable, indeed, urgently necessary.

First, as a methodological matter, revisiting canonical philosophical texts is a central feature of good scholarship. Too many scholars view such activity as merely the job of niche thinkers who study the history of philosophy or ideas. Their view seems to be that conversations can quickly evolve so as to make some works irrelevant and, therefore, there is little danger in ignoring them. Our view, however, is that works that are currently not central to conversations are often still highly relevant and that there is in fact great danger in allowing partisans of on-going debates to decide who is worthy of attention. Often, the sense that a work is no longer relevant is an illusion that is easily revealed by open-minded engagement with it. But, more fundamentally, we fear that the hard rejection of works such as Walzer’s is symptomatic of a tendency among scholars to approach works merely in search of a reason to ignore them. It is disturbingly common for scholars to read a work simply in search of a flaw significant enough to justify rejecting it entirely. As one of our mentors once described it, these readers are merely looking to find “where to put the knife.”³ This approach not only undermines potentially valuable dialogue between scholars and prevents the discovery of important insights, but it also leads to a radical ahistoricism that fails to appreciate the true complexity and robustness of the connections between thinkers and movements. No work is flawless, even the most important examples of human thought. One can accept that Just and Unjust Wars is imperfect and yet still find it immensely valuable.

Second, regardless of any methodological disputes, we think that it is simply untrue that Just and Unjust Wars does not have much to offer today. On the contrary, the book remains deeply edifying to contemporary readers and scholars. This is so for several reasons.

1. 1.
   Just and Unjust Wars surveys an astonishingly wide variety of topics and debates. It is so much more than a defense of the moral equality of combatants. Indeed, it is hard to think of another book published since 1977 that contains and defends an innovative theoretical framework for evaluating the resort to and the conduct of war while engaging with such a range of types of wars, moral problems peculiar to war, and rich discussions of real-world cases. Whether or not one rejects some portion of Walzer’s account, the book attains a level of comprehensiveness that remains extraordinary even after all these years. This is supported by the fact that the essays contained below tackle such a wide variety of topics.
2. 2.
   Walzer’s style rewards reconsideration more than most philosophical works. There is a certain irony here. The very features of the book that so frustrate analytic philosophers are simultaneously the features that help make it worth revisiting. Walzer is willing to openly express uncertainty, to be vague, to make generalized claims about history and human nature, even to be contradictory. Such authenticity, imprecision, boldness, and openness to paradox is a major reason that some contemporary philosophers are so ready to dismiss him. However, it is this way of approaching his subject that makes the book unusually lasting. While it can be frustrating to try to pin him down, Walzer’s work is nevertheless extremely rich. There is always something new to discover in it. It invites readers to engage in the conversation and to continue the inquiry. The novel readings of him offered in the chapters below confirm that the book is still an invaluable resource for new insights.
3. 3.
   Walzer’s method in Just and Unjust Wars deserves reconsideration in light of the methods adopted by some of his harshest critics. Walzer’s book aims to provide practical guidance for political and military leaders as well as combatants caught up in the messy real-world of domestic politics, international diplomacy, bureaucratic constraints, military regimentation, and combat. The book seeks true practical wisdom. As Walzer describes the research he undertook for Just and Unjust Wars in the Postscript to the Fifth Edition:

   the greater part by far of my reading was not in theory at all but in military history, both academic and popular, and then in the memoir literature produced by soldiers of different ranks (preferably the lower ranks: junior officers and foot soldiers, who make the toughest moral decisions on the battlefield); and then in wartime journalism and commentary (especially about Vietnam, the immediate occasion of my own writing). Finally I read many of the novels and poems that deal with the experience of fighting and with the company of soldiers. The nontheoretical genres, and the books and articles they include, seemed to me the critically necessary material for my project…. I wanted the moral arguments of my own book to ring true to their authors—and to the men and women about whom they were writing.⁴

   In the main, Walzer’s critics in the revisionist school don’t share this immediate practical focus. Instead, they seek to map out the abstract, universal moral rules of intergroup conflict, or what some call the “deep morality” of war. To be sure, these critics believe that there is, or can be, important practical import to insights about ultimate moral principles. However, this practical import is often of secondary concern to them. Indeed, in some of the major revisionist studies it can be hard to tell what, if any, changes to the practice of war and war-making they are calling for. Rather than talking to real-world decision-makers, these studies seem to be talking to those in the abstract, logical space inhabited by (some) philosophers. For those of us who have worried that these studies have lost their bearings,⁵ there is good reason to return to Just and Unjust Wars. While we might disagree with the content of his advice at times, we can appreciate the advantages of his practical focus and learn from it.
4. 4.
   Last, in recent years new threats have emerged to justice-based approaches to war and international affairs, whether Walzerian or revisionist, which should give common cause to everyone concerned with making international affairs more ethical. Whatever differences exist between Walzer and the revisionists, or between Walzer and the peacebuilders,⁶ these seem to be insignificant when compared to the differences between them and the xenophobic, race-b...