"scholars" support war on terrorism

[Carrol Cox]

Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> [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
[clip]
> "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."

Just-war theory _also_ says the war must be winnable, and it does _not_
say that "winnable" can be defined as winning a marginally important
battle against a mostly-irrelevant foe. The point is that the "cause"
must be achievable if the havoc the means bring about is to be
justified. One cannot justify killing x number of people in order to
save y number if you know from the beginning that y number are _not_
going to be saved.

It seems to me that the first and last articles in the curren NYRB make
it very clear that the war on terror is unwinnable -- that the deaths in
Afghanistan and elsewhere and the disruption of life in the u.s. that
the "war" will entail will not result in any significant change in
security against terror. Hence in terms of the alleged (just) cause, the
war lacks any basis whatever in just war theory. That theory demands
that _all_, not just one or two or three or four of its 5 principles be
honored.

Carrol

P.S. The list of "scholars" is quite a rogue's list to judge by the
names I recognized.