Realism as a Last Resort

by Jeremy Page

Last week in class it seemed that I was among the minority in thinking that the best approach to war was somewhere between “Just War Theory” and realism. It would seem that this makes it known that I think pacifism is laughable. Anyways, the rest of the class seemed to fall between pacifism and “Just War Theory,” and that approach is fine, just not my style.

It seems that we ironed out the definition of pacifism quite well, except that it took 3 hours. I suppose that it might be harder to define pacifism than it would be to define realism (as is pertains to war). Following the practice of pacifism dictates that “no one may employ non-consentual physical force (including lethal force) with the intention of causing pain (or death), even in self-defense or in the defense of others against aggression. One may use other forms of force and coercion to resist violence.” Going with this definition, pacifism hardly seems practical- in fact, it doesn’t matter what definition of pacifism you go with for it to be impractical.

I would suggest that realism is the way to go, but only after it is completely obvious convention related warfare has ceased to be practical. Clausewitz stated that “war therefore is an act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will.” War is not necessarily a human action, but a political one. Even so, war puts humanity at its worst, and in some sense that seems to justify realism. In any case, a defintion of realism as related to warfare is in order: anything goes. It’s as simple as that; the idea of inter arma silent leges (in time of war the law is silent) certainly seems to apply to warfare. As Walzer says, “what we conventionally call inhumanity is simple humanity under pressure. War strips away our civilized adornments and reveals our nakedness” (Walzer 4).

If a country is fighting for its survival, it seems pointless to follow “Just War Theory.” As long as a country/state seems to have a reasonable chance at successfully accomplishing its objectives it would seem prudent to follow “Just War Theory,” but once the country/state is at risk of losing a war it seems the proverbial gloves should come off. It is permissable to lose wars a country is fighting in other lands, as long as the country is able to cut its losses and run, but once a country’s sovereign land and liberty are being directly threatened the country should have every right to do whatever is necessary to procure its citizens’ safety: “men and women do what they must to save themselves and their communities, and morality and law have no place” in such circumstances (Walzer 3).

It seems to me that the information previously discussed brings up the issues with Walzer’s tale of the “Melian Dialogue.” The first problem that I see is that what really constitues a just war is fairly relative- each country sees exactly what it wants to see. And who should be the ultimate judge in deciding what endeavours are just or not? When the Athenians and Melians both see their causes as just, how can we really discern who is right? Walzer advances that both sides could appear to be right: “the Melians insist that their cause is just, they are saying only that they don’t want to be subject; and had the generals claimed that Athens deserved its empire, they would simply have been expressing the lust for conquest or the fear of overthrow” (Walzer 11).

The second problem requires us to say that the Athenians were just in their cause. In this case, Walzer questions the Athenians’ tactics, but never really arrives at a moral judgment (but much more of an observation): “The slaughter of the Melians is explained by reference to the circumstances of war and the necessity of nature; and again there is nothing to say. Or rather, one can say anything, call necessity cruel and war hellish; but while these statements may be true in their own terms, they do not touch the political realities of the case or help us understand the Athenian decision” (Walzer 8). It sounds like you may just have to bow to the idea of realism once in a while to get anything in war done.

During our discussion on pacifism, we discussed the status of non combatants. We concluded that non combatants are not to be killed, if they were to be killed, it would constitute a war crime. The only exception is the “double effect.” Double effect is a shoddy way of justifying the killing of non combatants. Those who fall in between pacifism and “Just War Theory” must consider it in this way, but those who tend to be in the realist camp will have to ask why non combatants cannot be killed. Even though non combatants do not directly help a country’s war effort, they are still part of the enemy camp. There is no point in singling out non combatants for slaughter, but if it helps bring about victory for you country why not do it?

Realism allows us to simply state that things are just the way they are; no amount of philosophical banter can help dull the brutality of war. All countries would like to keep up the appearance that they are completely interested in preventing inhumane actions during war- at least until they hit the bottom line: themselves. It does not seem rational to me to enter a contest such as war where you and your opponent both learn the rules and agree to abide by them, but you wind up in worse shape for playing by them while your opponent systematically breaks them. When it comes down to this, I believe that everyone is really lying to themselves when they believe that we should follow rules in a time of absolute terror and chaos that war actually is. Sure, it’s totally possible to follow rules when you are winning or when the war is so far removed from your sight that you couldn’t care less about it, but when you are involved in a struggle that is a direct threat to your own safety it seems fairly pointless to follow rules that are not completely enforceable. Walzer calls out this façade: “the truth is that one of the things most of us want, even in war, is to act or seem to act morally” (20).

It seems important that Walzer states that “the moral reality of war is not fixed by the actual activities of soldiers but by the opinions of mankind” (Walzer 15). This seems to make a case for realism in my mind; if what makes an action in war just or unjust is constantly under revision, why should we still bother adhering to moral principles? If actions in warfare are as subjective and situational as this, then why restrain ourselves with them? What really seems to make wars just or unjust is which side you’re on. It seems that mankind’s opinions on war have been evolving; war itself has been evolving as well, but the reality of war has remained the same.

I found Walzer’s conclusion to be interesting. He seems to think that if we were to all become realists, “we could simply tell one another, brutally and directly, what we wanted or have done” (Walzer 20). He seems to be correct, but it doesn’t seem like he takes into account that this is somewhat of a narrow conclusion. What about diplomacy? Surely if we were all realists we would not resort to immediately attack our foes whenever we had the slightest problem-it is simply inefficient to do. Being a realist during acts of war does not mean that you have to be ready to invade the next country that even thinks about stepping up to you. Being a realist does not mean that you meet every possible threat to your sovereignty with force, diplomatic or economic treachery might be preferrable in the long run.

It does not seem to be the case that people follow “Just War Theory” for the sake of mere morality. It seems to be the case that such opinions are tied directly to the idea that if “they” follow the rules, “we” will as well. The last time I heard anything akin to this thinking, was last semester in another class, where Dr. Miller labeled the majority of the class “suckers.” There is no real reason to be a sucker; it is wise to follow “Just War Theory” as long as it benefits you and your cause. “Just War Theory” is completely disposable once you become a sucker in practice, and not just ideaology. It seems that those countries who do follow some sort of moral code do so to keep up the appearance that they are on the moral high ground. They do this because it is has been fairly acceptable to use philosophical launguage to spin their stories, but what happens when this no longer works? I suggest, again, that those countries will eventually have to give up their spin stories and act in whatever way will further their cause. It would follow that pacifism is acceptable until it is no longer useful, at that point “Just War Theory” should replace it, once “Just War Theory” is no longer useful a country should be able to do whatever it needs to do to secures its objectives (realism). I suppose saying that each idea is acceptable as long as it is useful is what realism is in a nutshell.

I do not advocate strict realism; I approach it with the assumption that “Just War Theory” has actually been given a chance. Once a country has entered a defensive war, or in some cases initiated a pre-emptive strike, it is presumably fighting a just war. Only after an exhaustive attempt to follow the seven conditions listed by Joseph McKenna, may a country/state follow through with total war waged from the approach of a realist. It seems that this would still keep me between realism and “Just War Theory.” Well it seems that I have elaborated on my opinion when compared to Walzer's; hopefully you readers have been screaming "What the hell?!"