Chronicle of Higher Education - web daily - February 12, 2002
Scholars' Statement Says Fight Against Terrorism Is Consistent With Idea of 'Just War' By JENNIFER K. RUARK
Washington
A group of 60 prominent American scholars will release a letter today supporting the government's war on terrorism. The statement, "What We're Fighting For," defends the war on the basis of the philosophical principles of "just war."
"There are times when waging war is not only morally permitted, but morally necessary, as a response to calamitous acts of violence, hatred, and injustice," write the scholars. "This is one of those times."
Among the signatories are Jean Bethke Elshtain of the University of Chicago; Amitai Etzioni of George Washington University; William A. Galston of the University of Maryland at College Park; Robert P. George and Michael Walzer of Princeton University; Mary Ann Glendon and Theda Skocpol of Harvard University; James T. Johnson of Rutgers University; Glenn C. Loury of Boston University; and James Q. Wilson of the University of California at Los Angeles.
The letter is scheduled for release at a meeting cosponsored by two think tanks, the Washington-based Institute for American Values and the Center of the American Experiment, based in Minneapolis.
The letter states that while some signatories oppose certain U.S. policies, the United States is fighting not only in self-defense, but to defend universal principles, including religious freedom and freedom of conscience.
Political theorists and philosophers have long debated what constitutes a "just war." Under generally accepted principles, force may be used only for self-defense (as opposed to for territorial or political gain). It must be a last resort, when diplomatic or legal means are unavailable. The targets of warfare must be military, though civilians may be the unintended but foreseeable victims. Force must not be greater than needed.
Some scholars think the scholars' statement is too vague. Azizah Y. al-Hibri, a professor of law at the University of Richmond, declined to sign the letter. "The statement reads as a carte blanche," she said. "The war is not defined anywhere. What if it becomes a war against North Korea? I have the highest respect for these scholars, but the reasoning is patently missing."
In response to such criticisms, the signatories added a postscript to the letter shortly before releasing it: "The signatories do not, by issuing this statement, intend collectively either to endorse or condemn specific future military tactics or strategies that may be pursued during this war."
"Just-war theory says there must be justice in cause, justice in conduct, and justice in settlement," said David Blankenhorn, the president of the Institute for American Values and one of the signatories. "Our focus was on the first."