On March 1st, 2012 Andrew Fiala presented a lecture entitled “The Just War Myth: From Bush to Obama” to the Hamilton community as part of the Arthur Levitt Center’s speaker series on security. Fiala is Professor of Philosophy and the Director of the Ethics Center at California State University, Fresno. In his presentation Fiala argued that the Just War Theory is a useful critical theory for examining the morality of war, but that wars rarely live up to the standard of the tradition. As a result, Fiala urges people to be critically engaged citizens who constantly question war.
Memorializing war with religious rhetoric is not a new idea: the historical myth of American Exceptionalism involved a narrative in which the United States is a bastion of moral uprightness, and war is justified by the spread of American morality. The Just War Theory emerged as a set of criteria to make war morally acceptable, and has been articulated by leaders throughout history, including Barack Obama in his 2009 Nobel Peace Prize speech. Just War Theory has two parts: jus ad bellum, or the right to go to war (just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, comparative justice, probability of success, war as a last resort, and proportionality), and jus in bello, or right conduct within war (distinction, proportionality, military necessity, fair treatment, no intrinsically evil means). If each of these conditions is met, according to the Just War Theory, the war is morally acceptable and right.
Fiala argues that the institution of the American Presidency requires that the rhetoric of the Just War Myth is employed. Commanders in Chief must be the defenders of the people and American values, and in doing so must argue that our actions are right. He illustrates this with excerpts from speeches and policy decisions by both George W. Bush and President Obama. Myths are powerful and socially useful tools, Fiala contends, because they are built upon ritual and give meaning to our values and institutions. Presidents use the Just War Myth to perpetuate and reinforce American ideals of freedom, democracy, and liberty. Although war usually does not follow the Just War principles and often does not result in peace, presidents must focus on the high points of history and use the myth to give hope for the future. In order to justify war, therefore, our presidents must reduce ambiguity by arguingthat we are the “good guys” and that our wars are just.
In light of the history of the Just War Myth in the United States and its role today, Fiala comes to his own thesis that the Just War Theory is the most useful theory for understanding the morality of war through ontological and consequential reasoning. The problem, however, is that the theory is not used as a critical tool, and wars rarely live up to the standard of the tradition. Furthermore, the mythic idea that we actually fight just wars makes it more likely that we’ll fight unjust wars. Fiala identifies himself as a “contingent just war pacifist;” he believes that when we use the Just War Theory we should be reluctant to go to war, because few wars meet the criteria of the tradition.
Fiala believe that we as citizens stop thinking critically when we buy the myth employed by our presidents that our wars are actually just, and that this is the problem. He asks us to look at where we are now: our wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan have only resulted in more instability, but our presidents will spin the myth in the name of progress and argue that these wars were just once they are done, just as they have done with wars throughout history. Fiala urges people to think critically about past mistakes, and to constantly question and resist war. He agrees that the Just War principles are the best ones we have to deal with the issues of war, but believes that we need to admit that no wars live up to these principles. He therefore encourages people to be critically engaged citizens, to pay attention to history, and to fight to end unjust wars.