"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. . . .

Return to Top
ad
ad
ad
ad
ad
ad
You have loader more free article(s) this month   |   Already a subscriber? Log in

Thank you for reading
The Objective Standard

Enjoy unlimited access to The Objective Standard for less than $5 per month
See Options
  Already a subscriber? Log in

Pin It on Pinterest