Ashley+M.+-+Just+War

Home Small Wars Project Just Wars Essays

Comparison Essay: How Just Were the U.S.’s Small Wars?

The Just War Theory has two parts. Study the Just War handout and select the two most significant criteria for **//jus ad bellum//** and two most significant criteria for **//jus in bello//**. With these criteria in mind, select one war from each of your three tables that best meets these criteria. In the essay, you will analyze, compare and rank these three wars.

Write an essay that compares the three small wars and analyzes how well all three meet the four criteria that you believe are most important. Based on this comparison, select the __"most just"__ of the three wars and explain the reasons for the choice. Also, explain why your __second choice__ fell short and were not as just as your __first choice__ but is more just than your __third choice__.

RUBRIC: A quality essay will Explain why you selected **jus ad bellum** and **jus in bello** the criteria, Use the __four__ criteria to analyze why the three small wars are "just wars", Support your analysis of each war with evidence from the Small Wars Wiki, Rank the three small wars and explain why one war is more just than the other two, Explain why the __second__ choice fell short compared to the __first__ choice but is more just than the __third__ choice, Organize you writing in extended power paragraphs, Identify the source and establish its credibility with an appositive phrase, Cite evidence __internally__ and in a Works Cited.

War For The People What is Just War? The best ways to determine this are between Jus ad Bellum (the reason for war) and Jus in Bello (the strategy of the war once started). The best two criteria for Jus ad Bellum are “just cause” and “right intention.” According to “War”, form The Philosophy Encyclopedia of Stanford University, a just cause claims life or property to the rightful owner and/or punishes people for their wrongs; both of these ideas are necessary to keep a strict society. “War” also explains that Right Intention if focused on correcting suffered wrongs and only going into war for non-physical achievements, so material gain would make it unjust; theses focuses are important because societies need to focus on morals in order to keep their people secured and loyal. The best jus in bello criteria are distinction and proportionality. “War” states distinction strictly forbids any military acts toward innocent non-combatants or civilians. It also states that proportionality ensures the number of civilian injuries cannot exceed what is appropriate, depending on military advantage. These are both important because people that are not members of the military should not be treated like them, therefore not harmed or killed during a just war. Three wars that fall under these criteria are Nicaragua, Occupation of Japan, and Cambodia.

Nicaragua, Occupation of Japan, and Cambodia establish jus ad bellum. According to Drew S and Emma P, in 1926, Nicaragua and the US had a disagreement with the ownership of the Nicaragua canal and Nicaragua began to put the US’s people and property in danger; this let to the battle. This was a just cause because American lives were in danger, and they only went to war to protect them. Jack B and Becca J clarify that the US entered the Occupation of Japan in 1945 to stop Japan’s focus on becoming a more militaristic country because they were afraid this would spread communism from the Soviet Union. The right intention of this occupation was that they were taking a stand in what they believed in and trying to stop the spread of communism. According to Abby W and Alex K, The war at Cambodia started with the Vietnam War; Cambodians let the US secretly hide out near Vietnam, but bringing the war closer helped their government collapse; now they were part of the war, and they were going to help the US fight against communism. T he US and Cambodia had the right intention in the Vietnam War: to spread their beliefs and stop communism, and they also had a just cause because once Cambodia got involved, the US’s goal was to protect them. The battles in Nicaragua, Occupation of Japan, and Cambodia were all just wars because they follow the criteria of jus ad bellum- right intention and/or just cause.

Nicaragua, Occupation of Japan, and Cambodia also establish jus in bello. Drew S and Emma P explain that during battle, Nicaragua and the US were proportionate in military actions vs. harming of civilians, and the US eventually pulled out right after the guerrilla warfare to prevent any more harm done to civilians. According to Jack B and Becca J, in the Occupation of Japan, Americans went in as a reaction to the attacks and threats on US citizens. Their goal was to protect their people, not harm other civilians; this follows the jus in bello of distinction because they were trying to protect and prevent, not cause any new problems. Abby W and Alex K clarify that the US and Cambodia were proportionate while fighting because neither one of them wanted to harm Vietnam’s civilians, and there was much more military combat than genocide; it also fell under distinction because the US was protecting Cambodia’s civilians during the war. The small wars in Nicaragua Occupation of Japan, and Cambodia all fell under the criteria of jus in bello- distinction and/or proportionality.

I think the battle of Cambodia was the most just war. It was the only battle that fell under all four categories of criteria. It was the most jus ad bellum because the US went in and stayed in strictly to protect the people. The war wasn’t focused on material gain, land, or even power therefore it was not selfish. It was the most jus in bello because the staring focus of the Vietnam War was to put a stop to communism, and they continued to protect other countries on the way. They also made the war “even” considering there was much more military combat than there was genocide on the American side. The battle of Cambodia was a war for the people. Nicaragua and Occupation of Japan both only had two out of the 4 criteria, but I think the Occupation of Japan was more just than Nicaragua. In Japan, the US military was protesting against communism again; they were trying to improve the world to what they thought was better. When the US forces went into Nicaragua, they were partially doing it for a canal, which is a material gain; they were also involved in many guerrilla tactics which included harming civilians, therefore it was more against the people. I think a true just war is a war for moral value.

__Works Cited:__ Buchholtzsidoramericanstudies.wikispaces.org Abby W, Alex K. Cambodia Drew S, Emma P. Nicaragua Jack B, Becca J. Occupation of Japan "War," Stanford University Encyclopedia of Philosphy, 07/28/05, http://plato.stanfor.edu, 04/04/11 (class handout)
 * RUBRIC: A quality essay will **
 * • **** Explain why you selected the two jus ad bellum and the two jus in bello the criteria, **** criteria identified and explained **
 * •Use the __four__ criteria to analyze why the three small wars are "just wars", **** criteria used to analyze the wars **
 * •Support your analysis of each war with evidence from the Small Wars Wiki, **** evidence used to support your claims **
 * •Rank the three small wars and explain why one war is more just than the other two, **** evidence on Cambodia is misinterpreted but you reasoning is focused and supported. **
 * •Explain why the __second__ choice fell short compared to the __first__ choice but is more just than the __third__ choice, ****, The U.S. Bombed Cambodia but did not involve itself in the Cambodian Civil War. You do offer comparison of all three choices. **
 * •Organize you writing in ** **extended power paragraphs****,** ** except for the first paragraph, competently used **
 * •Identify the source and establish its ** **credibility** **with an appositive phrase,** ** sources identified **
 * •Cite evidence __internally__ and in a Works Cited. **** internal citation not used; WC has many formatting errors. **