Civics U: War
Preface
There are individuals and communities in the past and present who held and hold to pacifism – that is, who do not believe in, and who refuse to participate in military action of any kind. This is often based on a group’s historical experience or on religious teachings and convictions. However, the majority of Americans are not strict pacifists, and the U.S., like many countries, maintains a sizeable military budget. In fact, the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration which takes care of the country’s nuclear weapons stockpile has an estimated budget of $16.5 billion for “Total Weapons Activities” for FY 2023. And the Department of Defense budget request for FY 2023 is $773 billion.
Therefore, in the midst of the current conflict between Russia and Ukraine – that is, in the midst of Russia’s war against Ukraine – and given China’s threat to take over Taiwan, it seems needful to consider the nature of war and just war – that is, what justifies war by a nation and the expenditures that are required.
It may not be common to include war itself as a formal topic in civic education classes. Nevertheless, at least during a time of visible war and military conflicts, even younger children may have legitimate questions and concerns about such events. If so, these then need to be addressed in an appropriate way.
War or Conflict
The terms war and conflict (that is, armed conflict) often get used interchangeably in referring to serious military actions between nations. There is not always a practical difference in the use of the terms. However, when it comes to formally declaring war, the U.S. Constitution grants that power only to Congress. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Constitution includes the following statements related to defense, war, and the military:
The Congress shall have Power
To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; [emphasis by writer]
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…
So can the President declare war without congress? The War Powers Resolution of 1973, or the War Powers Act, is a federal law meant to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the Congress. It allows the U.S. President to send the Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
However, Article II, Section 2 which makes the President the Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, and state militias, has been interpreted and used to mean that the president may send troops into battle without consulting Congress and without Congress actually declaring war. Thus, there has been a distinction made between ‘making war’ and ‘declaring war’.
JUST WAR
What is it that justifies the country in declaring and going to war? There must be a just cause for initiating and conducting a war for the war to be a “just war.” Actually, the concept of just war has two aspects or considerations: (1) justification/cause for initiating, conducting a war; (2) definition or way of conducting the war
The first aspect is that the resort to armed force is justified under certain conditions; the second is that the use of such force should be limited in certain ways.
Early philosophers and theologians have theorized about exactly what conditions can justify war, and what restraints are to be followed in war – for example, keeping non-combatants immune from attack is to be observed under U.S. policy and U.N. policy today. Also, undue cruelty and inhumane treatment, and genocide constitute war crimes under international law. U.S. troops were accused of war crimes for killing unarmed civilians in what was called the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam War. Today, Soviet President Putin is accused of being a war criminal for ordering attacks on non-military buildings and installations housing civilians, and for use of mass graves; and Soviet troops have been accused of committing war crimes in the form of killing, raping, and torturing civilians.
In the case of World War I, while the U.S. still maintained neutrality, German submarines attacked ships leading to the death of American civilian passengers; and in World War II Japan made an unprovoked attack on the United States, as Russia has now made unprovoked attacks on Ukraine. Most people then agreed that the U.S. was justified in defending itself and taking the offense against the attacking armies and countries.
The next question is whether and when it is justified for a nation that has not been attacked to declare or make war in defense of another nation that needs and requests help to defend itself against an aggressor. Can “just war” be made in support of another nation? Historically such action has been taken, but there is not unanimity on this from either philosophical or strategic viewpoints.
A very pragmatic question in this regard is whether a nation or nation’s leaders should risk and offer the lives of its own soldiers in defense of, and on behalf of, another country. And to pacifists and isolationists, one might pose a hard question: Is there no cause including or other than self-defense and self-preservation worth dying for?
The matter of war calls for serious reflection on a person’s and a country’s beliefs, values, and vision, and the motives for being involved in and making or not making war.