Noam Chomsky: The Limitations and Problems with "Just War" Theory 

Gets old.

+Kropotkin Beard I write him as well he is a very kind life long learner. He has changed my life for the better.

me too. I owe him a great debt.

Kropotkin Beard, IF I happen to watch video of last season's football games, I can, ' accurately ', see what the winning teams did right, vs what the losing teams did wrong. Does this make me qualified to judge the performance of the players and coaches on the field? Of course not! It just means that I have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight, which they did NOT have at the time! This is exactly what Chomsky does: He exploits that same 20/20 Hindsight involving events that he already knows the outcomes to, and then represents himself as being qualified to judge those involved! So IF Chomsky is REALLY so much wiser than those in our Government whose policies have led us into, ' Unjust Wars ', then let's see Chomsky actually get involved in that policy-making, give us all the benefit of his superior wisdom, and show he can do a better job, AND ALSO accept responsibility for the outcomes, good or bad, At The Time, HIMSELF! NOT merely criticize everyone ELSE, with the great luxury of exploiting 20/20 Hindsight, like the ridiculous old Monday-Morning-Quarterback that he really is! Something to think about the next time you see/hear/read one of Chomsky's impressive SOUNDING recitations of facts & figures! SMH

I think utilitarianism is normally used to counter Kantian moralism, however I think it’s a poor man’s excuse for things like torture or even worse deeds.

@ladi. They don't exist, he makes them up.

@@Johnconno proof or you gotta delete your message sir

@@samsterlicious864 Ask MIT, they've been covering for him since the 60s. He was a librarian there. X

Check out the book "Just War Thinkers". they have chapters on Grotius, Elshtain and Walzer with great summaries

I would think it would be the perfect thing for them to have on their minds. What more important thing could there be on one's mind when in the military? 99.9% of the time serviceman servicemen are trained to perform a task related to either planning for or conducting warfare.

+ano nihme I don't know why they would resign... I did terribly in high school and I not only understood all of this, but I was enthralled by it.

+ViNcEnT RoSs It's West Point Military Academy, not a High School.

richard Taylor oh, it's a military academy. I thought he was trying to say that it was difficult to follow.

Not the guy at 13:00. He was falling asleep.

"I am not afraid to protect you...let someone try to harm you and test that theory" and now we can attack anyone we want because we're protecting someone else. Another vapid justification.

Try invading japan, i'm sure their perceived pacifist nature would change to something a little more malevolent.

This comment aged like milk. Especially as Japan has recently increased militarization due to China's aggressiveness.

By your definition we need more pacifists in the world than.

I feel like you just defined a realist in regards to war and violence. In my option pacifist are just realists who haven’t encountered a confrontation that forces a realistic approach. (Eg. attack a person who is trying to take your baby)

Arab aggression? Israel joined in with France and Britain attacking Egypt in 1954. It was engaged in a covert campaign assassinating Egyptian rocketry and aeronautical scientists and sabotaging foreign contractors. A third of the Egyptian military was not even in the country in 1967 it was in Yemen.

M CK didn't realize you needed a degree to learn about history. Frankly the study of politics/governance/history are hobbies. You don't need to be a scholar in those areas to read a book. You also don't need to be in politics to question the morality of a political decision. Do I need to have political experience to say that our intervention in Iraq or Vietnam was wrong?

Miranda Elaine, I did NOT say that Chomsky needed a degree. What I said was that Chomsky has ZERO Real World Experience in Government, Military, Foreign Policy, International Affairs, or National Security, and his critiques all have the great luxury of 20/20 Hindsight. -Which is all true.

M CK The theory he is critiquing is based off 20/20 hindsight as well. It's a rebuttal to someone else who does not have that experience. But yknow, 20/20 hindsight is how most people avoid being fools. "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it" after all.

It is ONE thing to use 20/20 Hindsight to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. It is entirely ANOTHER matter to spend decades merely EXPLOITING 20/20 Hindsight, by criticizing the past decisions and policies of others, but NEVER having the guts to step up, make these decisions and policies, and accept responsibility for the outcomes, going FORWARD, yourself! Which renders Chomsky's After the Fact criticisms essentially worthless! So let's see Chomsky actually get involved in the Policy Making process, give us all the benefit of his superior wisdom, and show he can do a better job, himself! -NOT merely criticize everyone ELSE from the sidelines, like the gutless Monday-Morning-Quarterback that he is!

M CK Chomsky is an activist who disagrees with the fundamental system upon which our government is formed. I don't think he'd be interested in being a part of it. Activists can have value without having positions in politics. Their role is to *appeal* to the masses and to people in power. His arguments are on morality which are inherently subjective, personal experience or "consequences" are irrelevant. Ps. Karl Marx was never a politician but he is blamed for communism aka Marxism lol.

Steve Nelson Here's a quote from your supposedly brilliant St. Augustine: "For the individual Christian under the rule of a government engaged in an immoral war, Augustine admonished that Christians, "by divine edict, have no choice but to subject themselves to their political masters and [should] seek to ensure that they execute their war-fighting duty as justly as possible." So, if you were a Christian living in Iraq, it would be your 'divine edict' to fight for Saddam Hussein. Your role models are astonishing.

Very excellent point, the whole of the Summa Theologica is the framework for our civil and criminal laws and is it perfect? Of course not, If you read scripture is man perfect? No we are not. If you spend your lifetime writing a new Summa and improve upon this framework for the betterment of all I will stand with you.

Steve Nelson There was work done by individuals to improve this framework for the betterment of mankind. Such as the UN, the Geneva treaties and the examples named by Prof Chomsky. And these are re-evaluated and reconsidered periodically.

Thanks Mr. Simeon for a thoughtful and respectful response. We all can debate and of course disagree or compromise. A construct of which seems to have been lost in recent years within the global geo political leadership currently in power.

Steve Nelson I want to preface the main issue by qualifying it in beforehand by honesty. My study of the ethics in war, especially the consideration of what constitutes a just war, is light; why I'm running against the risk of missing the obvious to slip on and veer off in aim for a valid argument why I grasp a lapsus in reasoning on your part and why your critique of Noam holds little to non negating effect on his condemning of the dubious wishful thinking of conducting a 'just war', hence why its moral whitewashing of wholesale murder and destruction should be discarded. My point will be 'brief'. To allow a notion ludicrous as conducting 'just wars' we allow the moral hazard of protecting atrocities, moreover, and more importantly, we allow for future wars or prolongation of wars by justifying them beforehand and after fait accompli. The act of war denies considerations of justice; attempting to strongarm the other aims to force your justice and understanding of how things aught to be on the unwilling other. At the extremes in search for a "just war" we can only find steady ground in defensive wars: I.E. you're attacked, defending yourself in this scenario is in no break with moral soundness until you use your particular position to justify pure punitive actions, such as terror bombings of soft targets or targets with dual use (such as textile factories or medical factories.) Preventive wars are out the window, too often justified on highly subjective and unsubstantial self-serving claims to start a war on. Just imagine if Russia would strike US/NATO missile systems, like the ICBMS in EU(which is a system for offensive purposes, counter to the claimed protective purpose) on fear for a imminent attack. Russia preventively starting a world war, likely a nuclear war, to avoid the possibility of being invaded. That, is a horrible argument for "just wars" vested in the claim of preventive war measures, in this case, and almost all others. The human rights argument to start a 'just war' is also dangerous - it also runs counter to your goal of ending a breach against human rights. If anyone believes that killing members of a group is to consider human rights I'd say they've ill-conceived what human rights means and why forcing death is in stark opposition to any stated goal to protect or further such ideals. Invariably, war leads to more violations of human rights. Perhaps because war, in its fundamental use, isn't about protecting any such rights or spreading their reign.