The Myth of Proportional Violence by Brad Jersak

Just War Theory: “Just War” is a idea and tradition developed by philosophers (e.g. Aristotle and Cicero) and theologians (e.g. Augustine and Hugo Grotius) in an effort to establish a platform of ethics for war and peace. “Just War theory” seeks to define ethical parameters of justice in the context of war. I.e. the justice of resorting to war (jus ad bellum), just conduct during war (jus in bellum), and justice in the peace agreements which terminate a war (jus post bellum). 

For the record, I do not believe there is such thing as a “just war.” It seems to me that such rules of the game treat war as just that: a game played on boards by powerful men who don’t look into the faces of civilians that they maim, kill, orphan or widow. Generals blind their politicians to the dehumanization of both their own soldiers and the enemy who is reduced to prey on a foxhunt. “Just War” knows nothing of the power of revenge once one’s friends and children are counted among the casualties. It did not conceive of nuclear weapons, cluster bombs, total war and terrorism. Such wars are not fought by rules nor won without the willingness to break them. And we know it. “Just War” is a theory no longer in practice. The term is often applied whenever we think our cause is just, but in fact, we have purposely abandoned virtually every principle that the theorists proposed (and have for quite some time).

I want to pick on just one of those principles in twentieth century practice: Proportionality.

Proportionality defined: Proportionality is sought in all three movements of Just War theory, with a concern for balance when it comes to expected outcomes, intended force and escalation, and fair disengagement treaties. It is this second phase, proportionality of force, which I would like to address. In Stanford’s Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, Brian Orend’s article on “War” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/#2) describes proportionate jus in bellum this way:

“Soldiers may only use force proportional to the end they seek. They must restrain their force to that amount appropriate to achieving their aim or target. Weapons of mass destruction, for example, are usually seen as being out of proportion to legitimate military ends.”

In other words, when weighing the cost of victory, one must calculate how many soldiers and civilians from either side of the conflict are acceptably expendable. How many lives are we willing to give or take to move the border, overthrow the tyrant, or control the oil?

Even if some naïve politician were to propose that proportionality be honoured, the obvious, emotional retort of the military (and likely the populace) is that enemy losses (military and civilian) are irrelevant. The point is victory with minimal losses to one’s own side. The generals in charge will ask the proportionalist, “You mean to say that we should send infantry and artillery in numbers proportionate to obtain a hypothetical victory over an unidentifiable enemy in a complicated target zone when we can simply drop bombs or fire missiles from the safety of our stealth jets or aircraft carriers? Why sacrifice even one of our young men or women in a “proportionate” offensive when we can shock and awe them with overwhelming firepower and destruction?” And this has been our history. Case in point: war with Japan.

History seems to remember two highlights in the Allied forces’ war with Japan. First, we remember the trigger point of Pearl Harbour… a surprise attack (or pre-emptive strike) on a military target that was gathering strength for war. Second, we remember the horrendous end with the nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki—the instant annihilation of two cities full of defenceless civilians. To some, this was horrendous and immoral. But I regularly hear an argument for those strikes based in proportionality. I.e. “Sure it was awful. But when you think of all the lives that were saved because the war ended, maybe that was necessary.” Proportionality, but at the expense of civilian targets (which does not meet another criterion for Just War: discrimination and non-combatant immunity).

But just for a moment, let us suppose that two populated cities were worth sacrificing for the end of the war. Let us assume that it was necessary and ethical. We err grievously if we use the mushroom clouds over Nagasaki and Hiroshima to shroud the holocaust of the firebombing that had already occurred. Somehow, even by holding the U.S. to account for their use of atomic weapons on two occasions, we can ignore and forget the uninhibited use (I would say indiscriminate, but it was purposeful) of WOMD’s on dozens of civilian populations beforehand. The following data was laid out by Robert MacNamara (who took part as an advisor during the attacks) in the documentary, The Fog of War. 

In March 1945, Tokyo, Japan, a city roughly the size of New York, is firebombed by American bombers. 51% of the city is destroyed and 100,000 civilians are killed in a single night, burned to death. 50 square miles of the city is burned to the ground.

50-90% of the people are killed by incendiary bombs in 67 cities before Hiroshima and Nagasaki are finally eradicated by nuclear bombs. Nothing about this resembles the proportionality that just war theorists require. Civilian deaths were not collateral to the bombing of military targets, but directly the object of the attacks. By the Geneva Conventions, it is a crime against humanity to bomb unarmed civilians.

General Curtis Lamay, who ordered the firebombing of civilian targets and ultimately the nuclear attack, said, “If we’d lost the war, we’d have been prosecuted as war criminals.”

Robert MacNamara, America’s Secretary of Defence under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, served under LaMay during the war against Japan. He confessed, “We were behaving as war criminals. What makes it immoral if you lose and moral if you win?”

Here is the raw data:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Japanese City firebombed	% of civilians killed by incendiary bombs	American City of equivalent size
Yokohama	50%	Cleveland
Tokyo	51%	New York
Toyama	99%	Chattanooga
Nagoya	49%	Los Angeles
Osaka	35%	Chicago
Nishomiya	12%	Cambridge
Shimonseki	37.6%	San Diego
Kuri	42%	Toledo
Kobe	55.7%	Baltimore
Omuta	36%	Miami
Wakayama	50%	Salt Lake City
Kawasaki	35%	Portland
Okayama	69%	Long Beach
Yawata	21%	San Antonio
Kagoshima	63.4%	Richmond
Amagasaki	19%	Jacksonville
Sasebo	41.4%	Nashville
Moji	23.3%	Spokane
Miyaknojo	26.5%	Greensboro
Nobeoka	25%	Augusta
Miyazaki	26%	Davenport
Ube	20.7%	Utica
Saga	44%	Waterloo
Imabari	64%	Stockton
Matsuyama	64%	Duluth
Oita	28%	St. Joseph
Hiratsuka	48%	Battlecreek
Tokuyama	48%	Butte
Yokkaichi	33.6%	Charlotte
Ujiyamada	41%	Columbus
Ogaki	40%	Corpus Christi
Gifu	70%	Des Moines
Fukui	86%	Evansville
Tokushima	85%	Ft. Wayne
Sakai	48%	Fort Worth
Hachioji	65%	Galveston
Kumamoto	31%	Grand Rapids
Isezaki	56.7%	Sioux falls
Takamatsu	67.5%	Knoxville
Akashi	50%	Lexington
Fukuyama	90%	Macon
Aomori	30%	Montgomery
Okazaki	32%	Lincoln
Shizuoka	66%	Oklahoma city
Himeji	50%	Peoria
Fukuoka	24%	Rochester
Kochi	55%	Sacramento
Shimizu	42%	San Jose
Omura	33%	Santa Fe
Chiba	41%	Savannah
Ichinomiya	56%	Springfield
Nara	69%	Boston
Tsu	69%	Topeka
Kuwana	75%	Tucson
Toyohashi	68%	Tulsa
Numazu	42%	Waco
Choshi	44%	Wheeling
Kofu	78.6%	Southbend
Utsunomiya	43.7%	Sioux City
Mito	69%	Pontiac
Sendai	22%	Omaha
Nagaoka	65%	Madison
Tsuruga	65%	Middletown
Hitachi	72%	Little Rock
Kugaya	55%	Kenosha
Hamamatsu	60%	Hartford
Maebashi	64%	Wheeling

This chart is overwhelming to me. But what is the point? Perhaps a few lessons might be learned if we but ponder them:

1. If just war ethics requires proportionality of destruction and immunity of civilian populations from direct attack, then we must concede that we have not seen a “just war” any time in the recent past. If these requirements are rendered impractical by the realities of total war, insurgent combatants, and terror cells, then we need not deceive ourselves with the notion of just war ethics. The fact is that those fighting wars on either side of the blurred-out frontlines have excused themselves from such conventions.

2. If just war ethics have indeed been set aside, then wars in the name of any God and draped in any flag are a sham. By what blasphemy can the facts of the above chart be attributed in any way to biblical justice or the Christian God? How can any nation simultaneously create and implement nuclear missiles, cluster bombs, or chemical weapons and claim to have the blessing of either Christ, Yahweh, or Allah? Across the board, such pursuits should be identified with no one but the Beast and his false prophets (those who lay hands of blessing on acts of destruction).

3. Modern warfare is neither “just” nor “holy,” even by the formal definitions of our theorists. Our bizarre justifications are only matched by our ability to see evil in “the other” and excuse ourselves of the same evils by using different labels. Let those without WOMD's or a history of using them on civilians cast the first stone. As I said, the firebombing of Japan was a true holocaust... a sacrifice by fire of victims who we knew were the bad guys. War makes bad guys of us all.

 

bj

Comments

[Brad]

Only since I posted this article did the myth of proportionality manifest itself so clearly to me in the current battle between Israel and Lebanon. As the conservative Christian right justifies mass destruction of civilian targets in the name of biblical covenants, end times eschatology, and the "war on terror," both Augustine's rules of Just War and the international laws of the Geneva Convention are unceremoniously discarded [by both sides]. By definition, both the Israeli army and the Hesbollah are committing war crimes in the name of self-defence while religious extremists from both sides cheer them on in the name of the God of Abraham. Horrific.

bj

[ehj]

Well said Brad.

For those who live in the realm of the Kingdom war is no longer a tennable platform to stand on. We are called to be peace makers, to be those who live according to the commands that Jesus gave us: Love God. Love your neighbour. Love your enemy. Forgive those who sin against you. The Sermon on the Mount seems to make it quite clear that as disciples of Christ we are to bring the revolutionary love of the kingdom of heaven into this world. Trying to justify the savage violence of war with theories and theology is the wrong focus for any Christian to take. Our focus should be on peace and love. The challenge we face is how to put these into genuine action; to take them to the front lines of this violent ridden world and sow the message and power of the Gospel in those dark and suffering places.

ehj