Blaine+F.+-+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.

POST JUST WAR ESSAY HERE

Controversy in America has largely stemmed from wars through out history, and still remains a dividing line among citizens today. If we have to risk our people, then there better be strong, honest, reasoning behind it. Common guidelines, known as jus ad bellum, are considered when debating if a war was started for a just cause. Jus in bello provides the same guidelines for how we should carry out a war once we have already initiated acts of war. These requirements can be applied to any war through out American history to decide what wars were truly just, and I have found 3 wars I agree with. The Occupation of Japan, the Second Iraq War, and the Nicaraguan War. These abided by right intention and just cause which gave them motivation to interfere. Once these wars started, they were carried out using military necessity and distinction, which I view as the most respectable way to fight a war.

A deciding factor that most Americans use to judge if a war is just, is why we got involved. Most citizens are concerned with the motivation because their loved ones have to be put in danger, it should be for an important reason. Right intention, using force to correct a suffered wrong, and just cause, defending innocent life that is in imminent danger, are important to consider when looking at the origin of a war. The Occupation of Japan is a good example of when right intention was the main concern of America. According to Becca and Jack's wikipage, "The US rebuilt Japan from the ground up and provided much financial assistance..." This was a huge help considering the state of Japan after World War II when this war took place, and it also limited the spread of communism which was a growing fear at the time. Similarly, just cause was another important reason to get involved in Japan. After World War II, Japan was destroyed and those suffering were the citizens who had no say in what went on in the war, America recognized this and decided, "To solve the problems Japan created for itself, the Allies occupied Japan with military and created the Potsdam Declaration". This was all in an effort to bring Japan up to par with the rest of the world and give them a new perspective on how a country should be run in order to eleminate chaos, violence, and over controlling rulers. However, just cause isn't always protecting other antagonized countries, but sometimes our own. The Second Iraq War was initiated because, "The United States believed that the Iraqi army had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)" and, "The United States also believed that the Iraqi government was aiding terrorists". These suspicions may have not caused a war, had terrorists not attacked the World Trade Center on Spetember 11th, which caused a wild fire of fear to spread across the U.S about our safety. In addition, right intention stemmed from the fact that, "President Bush also went to war to free the Iraqi people". Saddam Hussein was the dictator at the time, and he enforced harsh, evil, laws that caused his people to endure a great amount of suffering that America wanted to put an end to. In another, right intention guided war, known as the Nicaragua War, America was called on for help. On Drew and Emma's wikipage they explained, "...Adolfo Díaz, appealed to the United States for aid in suppressing a liberal rival for the presidency, Dr. Juan Sacasa, who was actively supported by the Mexican government." Marines were sent in to squash the violence that was occuring, which was an act done out of concern for the safety of Nicaragua. This can be considered just cause as well, because it was protecting innocent citizens who were unable to have safe and peaceful lives due to political tension.

Many wars can start off with good intentions, but somewhere in the chaos of war the actions to bring about a positive change can become too terrible to be justified. During the Occupation of Japan, America kept it's head above water by accomplishing the goal while maintaining it's integrity. Military necessity, using the minimum force required, was demonstrated very clearly by how much we helped Japan while we were occupying it. The Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, MacArthur, proved how non-violent the situation was in Japan when he, "...asked Washington for 3.5 million tons of food..." that Japan was in desperate need of. Although American citizens initially had difficulty accepting the awful actions of Japan from WWII, the troops used distinction when it came to the treatment of the Japanese. Distinction, directing war acts towards the enemy and not citizens stuck in the middle of war, was important in order to really make an impact in Japan. We were in foreign territory in a country that we had just fought a war with, so safety was obviously a concern. However, most of Japan had given up and wanted help from who ever could provide it, so we had to judge when we could help people and when we needed to use weapons. This skill was also used in the Second Iraq War, where a handful of enemies were stirred into a mass of innocent civilians. On Corbin and Taylor's wikipage, their source stated,"Operation Iraqi freedom was a rapid success in its initial phase of offensive operations because the soldiers and equipment of the coalition forces were vastly superior to their Iraqi opponents, who were poorly trained, poorly motivated, poorly equipped, and even more poorly led” (ABC-CLIO eBook). This shows that our army fought the Iraqis who were opposing us in order to protect those that wanted our help. Distinction was also important in the Nicaragua War seeing as we were fighting one presidental candidate, Dr. Juan Sacasa, and supporting another,Adolfo Díaz,along with the civilians. American forces were aware that Nicaragua wasn't the enemy, but rather, "Sacasa presented a threat to the people, American and non-American, living there". America made sure to direct acts of war towards him and his supporters. Unfortunately, this method was not curving the violence that anit-American liberals were creating. Considering military necessity, when, "...former secretary of war Henry L. Stimson was dispatched to Nicaragua to effect a compromise settlement. Both factions were disarmed and American forces stayed on to supervise.." America was making a responsible and caring choice. Instead of trying to increase harsh force to change Nicaragua, they stopped using force all together and created a more stable environment while still pursuing the goal of getting a pro-American in office.

While these wars followed respectable guidelines, there were some questionable aspects that caused opposition to continue fighting. The severity of these questionable aspects varies, and causes the ultimate justness of the wars to be different. The Occupation of Japan only had early on disapproval because, "Japan had created many war crimes in World War II that were "unforgivable" and showing the world that they were a militaristic nation". Americans did not want to help what they originally viewed as an evil country. As I said earlier, their opinion changed once they realized the helpless state japan was in and soon everyone was in support of the Occupation. Anonymous agreement was not found in the other 2 wars, the reasons being suspicion of ulterior motives and whether it was our concern or not. The war in Nicaragua didn't create much of a stir, other than, "People think its wrong because they think since it is not in our country then it should not be our issue". This was an opinion not shared by many Americans. The majority could see that Nicaragua needed help from outer forces and, although we may not be affected by the violence that was going on, we were called upon for help, and we could not ignore that. Although this war caused a little tension and unrest with Americans, it's certainly not considered a controversial war. A controversial war would be more along the lines of the Second Iraq War, which divided the country and caused mistrust between civilians and the government. This stems from Bush's intial claim of suspicions of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in Iraq. He used this as one of his major reasons for going into Iraq, but it was later learned that there were no WMDs in Iraq. This shifted the opinion so, "Americans then [started] to feel like they cannot trust the government (the Bush administration at the time) as much because they are giving false information and seemingly impulsively attacking Iraq."A war that was based on falsehoods counter acts the integrity is was carried out with, thus making it less just than a war like the one in Nicaragua or the Occupation of Japan. Those had legitimate purposes and goals that they were based off of which were simple and clear. The fogginess of the motives of the Second Iraq War causes it to be the most unjust. 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", attempts to use criteria to analyze the wars

Support your analysis of each war with evidence from the Small Wars Wiki, evidence used to support most claims

Rank the three small wars and explain why one war is more just than the other two, evidence not always cite; reasoning offered to explain ideas

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, competently used

Identify the source and establish its credibility with an appositive phrase, all sources not credited

Cite evidence __internally__ and in a Works Cited. not done

Please write with an academic voice, not in the first person.