"scholars" support war on terrorism

[Doug Henwood]

[The full text of the letter is at 
<http://www.propositionsonline.com/Fighting_For/fighting_for.html>. 
It's mostly hot air, and the words "Afghanistan" and "Iraq" don't 
appear.]

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."