Eugene Volokh takes on the “Only in Self-Defense” argument regarding war. I’ve made the same observation previously, but it’s nice to see a Real Internet Player (and sharp mind) confirm it.
And if one does accept this argument, then I think the conclusion is that the U.S. should have fought it out with Japan (though only until Japan promised not to touch Hawaii or the Philippines again) but have promptly concluded a separate peace with Germany. If one accepts that conclusion, then that’s fine; but those who don’t accept it must therefore reject the pure self-defense-only view.
58 view(s)
One flaw…
Japan was Allied with Germany at the time. So, if you attack Japan you would cause Germany declare war on the U.S., and to “take” your property within the area of it’s control, along with your Citizen’s….Thus making the Attack on Germany self defense.
The day after the Pearl Harbor attacks, the US and Britian declared war on the Japanese. On Dec 11th, the Germans declared was on the US, and we knew that their intensions could not be thwarted by asking for peace; we knew how well they kept up their end of the bargin. We were fighting in self-defense.
Oh, and we did end up with a separate peace with Germany. The war ended there on VE day in May. VJ day was in August.
This argument (only in self-defense) is too realpolitick for my tastes. What is self and what is defense? Should the British not enter Basra because the death squads are only killing the civilian populace? No, bottom line, moral war is the predicated on the protection of others, not the protection of self.
A point to Rich…
And a point to Mary…
Hmmmm.
The Germans did declare war. But aside from sinking some merchant ships (which were supporting active foes), Germany wasn’t really doing all that much that required self-defense against. Indeed, there were a lot of folks pre-Pearl who were studiously against any US involvement in that European war, even the provision of war materiel to Britain.
Germany declaring war on the US was an excuse for the US to become actively engaged in the European theater, first by air and sea, later on the ground. But it’s really a legal nicety; Germany posed little actual immediate threat to the US, and really no actual support to Japan, the actual “self-defense” foe.
We can say, sure, Germany was clearly a potential threat, and in the future it could seriously attack us — but I’m not sure that a formal declaration of war doesn’t make US involvement in the ETO a pre-emptive war.
Nothing was said about Pre-emptive, just Self-Defense. If Some country declares war on you, it is in your best interest to “defend” yourself. Anything else would be silly.
There is a better historical analog for pre-emption. The Cuban Missile Crisis was a pre-emptive act of war. A quarantine is considered to be an act of war.
Yeppers…
But a “peaceful” Pre-emption. The pentagon’s version of “pre-emtion” (Bomb Cuba now) would have ended to world.
“Silly” would be extending yourself into a two-front war (European and Pacific theaters) when the true, active, need-to-self-defend threat came from just one.
Wars (of the top of my head) seem to come in two categories:
– Aggressive
– Defensive
A pre-emptive war, which is the justification for the Iraqi conflict, falls into a middle ground between the two — it can be seen as Aggressive (since it’s not responding to an immediate threat), or it can be seen as Defensive (since it is attempting to pre-empt a future Aggression that would need to be Defended at greater cost).
(That leaves out cases where pre-emption is actually just cover for Aggression.)
US action in Europe did not come because Germany formally declared war on the US. US action in Europe came because (as Mary put it) “we knew that their intentions could not be thwarted by asking for peace; we knew how well they kept up their end of the bargain.” We were already trying to passively pre-empt the danger, by supporting Britain as a proxy; the German declaration let us more actively pre-empt it.
Kruschev did not view our actions as “peaceful”.
Pre-emptive = Aggressive.
A Pre-emptive version of WW II would have been for us to have attacked Germany after the Sudatenland fiasco. Any time somebody declares war on you everything after is Defensive.
Applying “Thought Crime” logic to war leads nowhere. Everybody, at some point in the future could be a threat to us. Does this mean that we attack every other country now to take care of this potential problem now? Beat the rush as it were.
If Iraq had declared war on us, it would not be a “pre-emptive” war. If Iraq had an ally who, because of their treaty, also declared war on us (say Zimbabwe for fun), and we attacked it, it would still not be a “pe-emptive” war.
Rich…
That’s why I put Quotes around the peaceful.
I think a pre-emptive war is a lot more justified against Iraq than, say, Zimbabwe. Or Canada. Or France. I’m not sure that you can point to a formal event (let’s say, a formal declaration of war) and say that such a declaration all of a sudden justifies (or doesn’t justify) the conflict at hand.
But, Dave, you say, that makes things awfully fuzzy. Was Japan’s pre-emption against American military force at Pearl Harbor therefore justified, even without a formal declaration of war?
An interesting question, that. I don’t think so, but part of it has to do with preferring the US to Imperial Japan. That makes things kind of messy, but, then, so is life.
Something for me to ponder.
We have some history with pre-emptive strikes: Though hostile action had been taken at Lexington and Concord, and though the British had left Boston in rather a hurry, no actual war had been declared. The British thought of these actions as small armed rebellions by “colonists.” Declairing independence (and creating a union that did so as one body) was seen as a pre-emptive move againts the British (who were on their way to put down the rebellion, anyway).
Right up until the last moment, some of the colonies’ most well known statemen argued for peace. They sent several peace entreatments to King George III, who ignored them. In fact, part of the colonists grip against the crown was that they were ignored almost as much as they were taxed (without representation). I’m not suggesting that these are analogous situations, just that our nation has done this since it’s inception.
I can’t really add to the discussion, but this is some of the best discussion I’ve seen. Thanks for letting me lurk!
Very, Very Bloggish
I’ve got a few links to preserve. First, here’s a link to http://www.centcom.mil where the latest news releases can be found. Second, I’ve elucidated why I favor the war on Iraq, as much as I…