Many people wonder if war is a necessary evil. War can end injustice and brutality. It can lead to freedom and liberty, and ensure the safety of future generations. However, war also costs lives, and it leads to brutality. War can tear apart families, and cause pain and suffering. In the book My Brother Sam is Dead, the main character, Tim Meeker, has to weigh these factors and choose what side he is on. Throughout the book, he is indecisive, and constantly debates which side he should choose. By the end of the book, Tim decides to become neutral after seeing and experiencing the deaths of Ned, Life Meeker, and Sam Meeker.
In My Brother Sam is Dead the authors prove that war is futile. War is futile means that war is pointless or, not producing any useful product. One of the points that proves war is futile is it confuses reality with principle. Secondly war creates the youth against the elders, a clash of generations. Lastly the most devastating point that proves war is futile is it tears families apart. Although in My Brother Sam is Dead it is unclear what side the authors are on; ultimately they argue that war is futile.
Can an antiquated lens provide an adequate examination and understanding of modern warfare? The theories of Carl von Clausewitz retain remarkable contemporary merit and relevance in explaining the critical elements affecting warfare in the modern era.
From the beginning of the United States’ history, conflict has always been prevalent. The need for armed forces continually grows, especially in times of war, as the fight for freedom becomes more challenging. Conscription, better known as the draft, was first introduced during the Civil War as a way to get more individuals involved in the military to fill vacant positions. The practice of the draft was finally discontinued in favor of an all-volunteer military system, when the need for troops was no longer necessary. After almost two decades of being involved overseas, the demand for armed troops is imperative once again. In the essay “A New Moral Compact,” David W. Barno formally uses effective rhetorical techniques to successfully argue that a draft lottery system is essential for the United States’ involvement in armed foreign conflict to subside.
“It is well that war is so terrible-- otherwise we would grow too fond of it,” were the words once said by the Confederate General, Robert E. Lee. Indeed, even opposing nations can agree that war is full of destruction and devastation. Despite this, there are those who believe that war is glorious. Too often, movies and literature depict war as a virtuous endeavor. Young men are often told during war that they should become a soldier, for honor and glory. As a result, many young men are pressured into joining the military, or even join willingly, due to this over glorification. All Quiet on the Western Front by Erich Maria Remarque and “Dulce et Decorum Est” by Wilfred Owen discuss this very topic. Quite similar works, both feature ex-soldiers as their authors.
Just War Theory has been use for a thousand years, is what Christian ethicists and theologians have used to determine when it is morally acceptable for someone to go to war. Augustine and a few others are mainly responsible for the guidelines to the Just War Theory. He made some assumptions about a Christian citizen’s duty to obey political authority and contribute to the task to the civic life (Clough & Stiltner, 2007, pg. 53). Augustine believed that the only just reason for going to war was to maintain peace. Pacifism believes that the use of military force is never moral. Just War theorists accurately criticize this view on the grounds that evil aggressors exist who seek to kill and dominate the innocent, and that force is often the only effective way to stop them. War is sometimes morally necessary (Brook & Epstein). In the book Faith and Force, we see the co-authors have a debate about many issues and one of them is about Just War Theory. After reading this debate I would have to say that I agree and say that had the better of this debate is Brian Stiltner.
Throughout the decades, history has recorded all the wars in which the United States has participated in. Some may consider that the United States’ participation in foreign affairs may have been cruel, or unnecessary; while in other cases, others find it essential for the United States to fight for the common good. Therefore, philosophers—in the pursuit of justice—have designed methods that dictate how a nation can justly engage into a war, one of this methods being the Just War theory. The Just War theory, invented by Saint Augustine around the 4th century, allows to determine when to initiate a war and the level of violence that is justified (Maiese, 2003). The United States participation in the Korean, Vietnam,
The Valley Forge War is not like any other war. It’s the Winter of 1777-1778 in Valley Forge and the American colonists are at war with the British and things don’t look so good for the colonists. Would I have quit? I have decided not to reenlist for three reasons which are the freezing weather, the sickness, and I don’t want to die.
The individual freedoms guaranteed by our founding fathers and written in the constitution, become the first causalities when our leaders decide to declare war. The first ten Amendments of the Constitution, commonly known as the Bill of Rights are the foundation of this nation’s laws, and is the benchmark of how our government treats the citizenry. Many times in our history leaders took actions to suspend personal freedoms in the name of “war”. A few examples are, the killing and repatriation of the Native American, the Japanese and German internment camps during World War II in the name of war and national security concerns. For the purposes of this paper the main focus will be on the time from the 1950’s to today. We will look at the
Just War, what does it really mean? What is the criteria for a Just War? The definition of Just War according to Dictionary.com would be, “A military action that is justified as being permissible for legal or moral reasons.” What justifies war permissible would be next thing to look at. Before going
My main defense for "just" wars is rooted in what the international community has failed to do instead of what they have done. For example, major world powers failed to protect the Tutsi ethnicity during the Rwandan Genocide during the 1990s. This was a catastrophe that was widely reported
Just war also frames war in the wrong way and It focuses on a limited conflict. There are long term conflicts to think about before rallying up and setting for battle. “The use of military force to stop the killing in Rwanda would have been, in my view, a just war” (Walzer, Pg. xi). Walzer describes the use of military forces being avoided if possible, but used if necessary. I agree with Walzer that there are times our troops can be and should be used, but there are limits. We have recently over the
War and genocide have historically been closely related and even described as Siamese twins. Genocide can occur without war but war cannot occur without some elements of genocide as the distinction between legitimate war and genocide is not clear. War is defined as an armed conflict between different nations or groups within a nation. Scholars who have studied the relationship between war and genocide have argued that they are one in the same. It is a very convincing argument especially when examining the UN Convention on genocide. The UN Convention defines genocide as “any of the follow acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group” (Jones 13). The wordings of the definition can
War is justified when there is a “just cause”, and when it is used as a “last resort”. In many cases however, there are corrupted individuals who only perceive that which just through their own eyes which is very subjective instead of looking from an objective perspective. So what is a “just cause”? It means to confront a real and certain danger, a cause that carries sufficient moral weight, or one that is to prevent something wrong or evil from happening. However, this
The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.