No Surprise at Rumors of New Atrocities by Our 'Foot-Soldiers'

[Dennis Breslin]

Your final comment begs the question.  But taking your
point at face value, resistance opposition to subjugation
or conquest does indeed privilege the defender since why
would we want to give equal time to an aggressor as
conqueror.  Unfortunately just wars rarely involve such
clear-cut underdogs and uber-dogs so your point stands.
More unfortunate still is the history of nation building as
subjugation.  Why respect the right of nations to defend
themselves in the first place?

Dennis Breslin


> The paradox of just war theory is that it privileges the
> justifiability of defense. To the extent it does not investigate the
> conditions/decisions leading to the *inauguration* of aggression, it
> is woefully incomplete. Few would deny the right of nations to defend
> themselves from extreme belligerence and we should surely respect that
> right. The issue is aggression as first cause and whether that is ever
> justifiable, imo. When we accept the justifications offered regarding
> defense are we not simultaneously, albeit usually tacitly, asserting
> that the aggressor was not justified? If so, when has aggression ever
> been justified--whether individually or institutionally? We can leave
> the issue of where the authority, if it exists, to command another[s]
> to engage in aggression is justifiable for now.
> 
> Ian
>