The Just War Clause and Iran

Trump: “We are going to war.” When asked how long it would last, he said, “About a week!”

Hegseth: “We didn’t start this war, (?) but with President Trump, we will finish it.” Forget rules of engagement. We are going to win it while our allies just continue to ‘clutch their pearls.’”

Hegseth’s announcement seemed like a little boy at Christmas. The above two were speaking as tough guys. I have known many tough guys in my life. These two are not it. One is a five- time draft dodger. Of course, Barron his son should enlist right away for a noble cause. The other an ex talking head for Fox who is too excited about the possibilities of war. We have two diplomats, Kushner and Witkoff, who are real estate guys, who haven’t the foggiest idea of the history of the area or how diplomacy works. When did Kushner become part of the Trump Administration? His only interest in the area are the Saudis and building a hotel change in the Gaza domain.

Yesterday on March 2 Melania Trump became the first U.S. first lady to preside over the U.N. Security Council Session on the role of education and technology. Her husband just bombed a school in Iran. Give me a break.

The bumper sticker is correct. If you elect a clown, you will get a circus.

There is little debate that the war is illegal which is where most of the news has focused, but little has been said about the ethical and moral dimension of these actions. The legality of Trump’s decision is that he did not use the proper channels by not including Congress in the decision. He also didn’t prepare American citizens. Comments by Hegseth about the cowardly ways that allies haven’t acted (clutching their pearls) show a propensity to alienate our allies. What could go wrong?

Because he has lied so many times, the nations of the world will see his actions with suspicion. Because of his transactional decisions where he benefits from what he does, many have concluded that his start of a war is the best way for people to forget about the Epstein Files. They won’t.

Ethical action is defined in the Just War Clause regarding the ethical reasons for going to war. It was founded by St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas and is part of natural law which is the philosophical basis for Roman Catholic perspectives. But natural law has a much broader interpretation as a non-religious perspective. It was interpreted by John Locke as a foundation for equality for all and the sacred nature of contracts such as international law.

It has the following reasoning. If taking the life of another is unethical, how do you justify going to war. Just War is an interim step that defines justifications for going to war.

The following are the necessary conditions to go to war.

It must be seen as a last resort known as Jus Ad Bellum. It must be conducted with proportionality a known Jus In Bello.

It must always be done out of self-defense and follow a conventional fashion not using biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons.

It must be done in a fashion where there does not have significant loss of life. Hospitals, schools, and designated structures as those that are part of the Red Cross. There must be a fair declaration of war. There should be no surprises.

The war must distinguish between soldiers and civilians.

There must be stated rules of engagement that must be clear.

When I discussed the Just War requirements in Ethics Class, we reviewed whether certain wars fell under the Just War Clause. World Wars 1 and 2 were examples of when the Just War Clause was seen.

Pearl Harbor and the Vietnam War were not seen as following the Just War Clause because because of the use of guerilla warfare.  We did not start these wars.  Hiroshima is not seen as a just war ingredient but was defended that it was saving American lives more than an invasion. Utilitarianism prevailed as the greatest good for the greatest good of our primary group of American troops.

One of Trump’s many failings is his inability to plan and therefore not to see the consequence of his decisions known as consequentialism in ethics.

Utilitarianism gives Trump a possible out as the guideline “greatest good for the greatest number” could be a justification if his group is our nation or the whole world in eliminating a nuclear threat in the future.

All decisions in Utilitarianism must stand the test of time, but the bombing of Pearl Harbor and Hiroshima are still debated as ethical actions. You can argue both sides of the ethical issue again using the system of Utilitarianism and the identification of your primary group.