Wells and the “Just War” Revisited

by Kim Morrison

When I chose to read the article by Frederick Struckmeyer, I had no idea that I was going to be dealing with the article on “just war” by Donald Wells again. I knew I had gone in a very different direction with the Wells article than most would have but after reading Struckmeyer’s article I can see now just how different my direction was. When writing my last paper I admit that I had tunnel-vision. I was only tuning in to the parts of Wells article that I understood and ignored most of the other things. Reading Struckmeyer’s article has helped me to see the errors Wells made throughout his article. My objective in this paper will be to examine and discuss some of these errors in more detail.

Unfortunately the major problem Struckmeyer recognizes with Wells’ article is what I used to write a good portion of my last paper, his comparison between medieval and modern warfare. I now see that this comparison, although one I understood to some degree, was greatly biased on Wells’ part. He seemed to present the warfare of medieval times as far less evil and more morally justified than modern warfare. Struckmeyer also points out that Wells seems to believe the whole Just War Theory has become completely useless, or nearly so, when it is applied to modern warfare. Wells basically makes this argument by saying that the type of weaponry used, based on the technology available at the time, is what makes the difference morally between these two time frames. Wells argues that once weapons can be used to shoot at a target that one cannot see with the naked eye, the “justness” of that war becomes questionable. At first I had agreed with him but I have amended my position because Struckmeyer makes a good case against this argument when he mentions the use of cannon and the ancient cross bow. These weapons, although not as accurate or as effective as the ones in modern times may be, were still used against the enemy at distances where hand-to-hand combat was not possible. Apparently Wells and I were both too occupied with hand-to-hand combat and weapons that could kill at close range that we neglected to take into account those ancient weapons which were rather effective at greater distances.

Another argument Wells makes for medieval warfare being more just than modern warfare is the number of noncombatant deaths that he believes has come to grossly outnumber the deaths of combatants. In my last paper I mentioned that in the age of chivalry, deaths of noncombatants were to be avoided whenever possible. I still believe this to be true but I do agree with Struckmeyer when he says that not all civilian deaths were accidental. I am quite convinced that no matter how much time and energy were put into keeping civilians out of a war, the number of combatant and noncombatant deaths, accidental or not, were probably closer than Wells is willing to acknowledge. Struckmeyer uses the severe drop in China’s population (millions of deaths) due to the Mongol invasions to argue that a large number of civilian casualties has always been a part of any war, past and present. Although I agree with him on that point I find it interesting that he chose China as his example because Wells seems to be presenting the European aspect of the medieval period. Did he encounter a problem finding a European example that would have completely put Wells’ argument to shame?

Wells’ pacifist position that all wars are bad and should be avoided at all costs is what creates the most problems in his article. But what else can a pacifist say, right? When all avenues to avoid a war have been exhausted and it seems that a war is still inevitable, what is the morally acceptable thing to do? Surrender, according to Wells. How this is acceptable to him (or any pacifist for that matter) is beyond me. He also seems to believe that even the consideration of fighting a war, no matter what the reason, is morally wrong. How this is possible in modern times when countries have standing armies ready to fight when the need arises is a problem Wells does not readily deal with. (Remember those little green toy soldiers I spoke about in my last paper? Guess what? They’re back.) I suppose he is using good Christian ideology, believing that it is morally right to turn the other cheek and avoid war but in how many situations has that stance been really prudent? As Struckmeyer points out, it is an individual policy that is not easily used as a national policy. Especially for those countries, the United States included, in which surrender itself is rarely, if ever, considered an option. He also does not make a distinction between a defensive and an offensive war. I believe he does not make this distinction because no matter what the reasons are, according to the pacifist viewpoint, war is bad. However, Struckmeyer believes, and I agree, that it is this distinction that makes the difference between a just and unjust war. He states that “…to resist when one’s life or country is threatened is not the same as to kill out of personal (or collective) hatred or vindictiveness,” (p. 53). How a pacifist can argue that surrendering to an enemy could ever be better than defending oneself when attacked is truly bizarre.

Despite the fact that Wells tended favor the medieval war as the lesser of two evils and his pacifistic viewpoint, Struckmeyer agreed with a great deal of Wells’ “just war” philosophy. We must keep in mind, as we are learning in class, that most people are not towards one extreme or the other (totally for war or totally against war). As Struckmeyer observes, “Wells…reminded us that there is an alternative to war,” (p. 55). However, his “wonderful world without wars” can only be realized once we all put down our weapons and open our hearts and our minds to the possibility of a normal life without them.

When I started writing this paper I thought it would be easy since I was referring to an article I had already had experience with. I see now that I still don’t have a firm grasp on the concepts surrounding the JWT. The only thing I am certain of is that the principles of JWT need to be revised to accommodate the changes that have occurred in the manner in which wars are fought. In my opinion, the philosophies behind pacifism and appeasement and the idea that surrender, or at least nonresistance, could ever be better than waging a war are absurd. I suppose my high ideals are the products of being born and raised in a country that can afford to defend itself without worrying about how that is going to be accomplished. No matter what my opinions are or how I came about them the one philosophical thing I can say with any conviction is, “The only thing I know is that I know nothing.” Thanks Socrates.