Just And Unjust War Analysis

1154 Words5 Pages
It is a widely held consensus that initiating a war is morally wrong, but responding to an aggressor is morally justifiable. However, anticipatory warfare remains a gray area. In Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars, he discusses three models of anticipatory warfare. The reflexive model occurs when a nation is about to be attacked and they decide to respond before they feel the impact of the attack. The preventive war model lies on the other end of the spectrum. In this case, the nation strikes first because they fear another nation’s growing power. Walzer’s model requires a sufficient threat before a nation is justified in a pre-emptive strike. A nation’s decision to strike first can be morally justified, even necessary, but there must be…show more content…
Instead, it comes from a fear of a shift in power. A preventive war occurs when a nation or a group of nations decide that an enemy is becoming so powerful that they will inevitably threaten the sovereignty of other nations. Utilitarians defend this type of war by arguing that the balance of power preserves the liberties of everyone in the international community and that the cost of fighting earlier would be less than the cost of waiting until the enemy grew stronger (Walzer 77). Preventive wars are sometimes called wars as risk management. The Pentagon defines preventive war as “initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable and that delay would involve great risk” (Heng 126). There is controversy about whether the war against Iraq was preventive or pre-emptive. Iraq did not pose a specific and urgent threat. Saddam Hussein posed potential risks with links to Al-Qaeda. Therefore, the war is considered preventive instead of pre-emptive. Despite this distinction, many argue that the war was justified. In his book, War as Risk Management, Yee-Kuang Heng argues that weapons of mass destruction change the meaning of imminence. Since the old definition of imminent attack did not address terrorism and missiles, the line between pre-emption and prevention becomes blurred. Nevertheless, a preventive war in…show more content…
In this model, a sufficient threat is necessary in order to justify an anticipatory war. A country poses a sufficient threat if there is evidence that they have a manifest intent to harm, that they are actively preparing for war, and that there would be a great cost for delaying the inevitable war (Walzer 81). A manifest intent to harm denotes a specific threat from one country to another. Walzer uses the Six Day War between Israel and Egypt as an example of a pre-emptive war. Since Israel was founded in 1948, Egypt made it clear that they did not believe Israel had any right to exist and, therefore, could be justly attacked (Walzer 82). This is a clear example of a specific threat from one country to another. The second condition, preparation for war, requires evidence that the enemy is amassing weapons and troops. A nation that is simply augmenting its power does not justify a pre-emptive war. The third requirement, a situation in which delaying would increase risk, is self-explanatory. Israel’s first strike against Egypt was legitimate, because all three requirements were clearly met in the lead up to military action. There are counterarguments that claim pre-emptive wars cannot ever be morally justifiable; that they are veiled attempts at justifying an act of aggression. However, if there is a current and specific threat
Open Document