What exactly these boundaries are, and how to enforce them, is a source of controversy. Proponents of Just War Theory, such as John Rawls, believe that “in the conduct of war, a democratic society must carefully distinguish three groups: the states’ leaders and officials, its soldiers, and its civilian population” (Rawls 114), and there exist international laws and statues that provide heavy protection to civilians during wartime. As a result of this human intuition to fight fair, civilians have certain moral rights during wartime, despite any uncertainty around the logistics of these moral rights. The intentional killing of innocents during wartime violates these rights and oversteps the moral boundaries of
“ They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger?” this statement weakens the spirits within the colonist due to the intolerable acts. Although Britain thought the act would help them strengthen it was undermined by the presence of increasing the military activities. According to henry no matter what happens the war will come, “ The war is inevitable and let it come! I repeat it sir, let it come.” The main point of the speech is that the colonists must go to war to protect their own freedom.
ARIS describes the human element of resistance which is a pivotal fact prior definitions would rather us to ignore. These non-violent or “Velvet” revolutions or resistance movements have been successful at achieving their objectives and should not be easily discarded. Something easily done with the previous view on resistance and conflict. Essentially, ARIS is drawing attention to the gradual transformation of a non-violent resistance into a violent resistance. Acceptance of this awareness in all forms should enable political and military leaders the necessary cues to intervene within a resistance at the optimal point in
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.
In the play Antigone, Sophocles uses duality to explore citizens conflicting obligations, that of one’s inner desires and of social regulation, resulting in the ongoing struggle for balance of freedoms and restrictions in our everyday life. This makes us question the role of our government, whether it is put in place to preserve or restrict our freedoms. Thoreau and civil disobedience True patriots not those who blindly followed their admin, but those who followed their own conscious. He sought to move prestige away from obedience to independent thought. What marked out a noble citizen was not that they respectfully shut up, but that they thought for themselves everyday of an administration's life.
Connell states that hegemonic masculinity is likely to be established only if there is some correspondence between cultural ideal and institutional power. Using this definition the military men can legitimately make a claim to hegemonic masculinity. As service members they are agents of the state domination, legally vested with the right to use lethal force in order to maintain domination. Similarly, in the case of the Indian army, it may be interesting to see how the army personnel not only represent the ideal masculinity but also use their institutional power in order to establish their masculinity as hegemonic. However, before going further it is also important to understand the distinction between external and internal hegemonic
Moral degradation is a necessary evil in order to survive through war; therefore, construction of a new morality is inescapable. Within the stories in The Things They Carried, soldiers are required to do so during and after the Vietnam War. War breeds monstrosities and wanton cruelty. When faced with two evils, picking the lesser immoral option is not necessarily something to be frowned upon. This is what separates a soldier’s morality and a civilian’s morality.
This lesson evidence the importance of a proper assessment for the military leaders. Retired US Army colonel Hy Rothstein claimed in his book Assessing War that American approach to war confuses winning battles and campaigns with winning wars. The risk of this approach is that it removes the political objectives from the spotlight, and by doing this, the difference between measures of performance and measures of effectiveness becomes fuzzy. It is easy for the commanders to use their own internal standards like the number of sorties flown or the amount of bombs dropped, but without a contrast to the affectation of the desired targets and the end states these numbers become irrelevant. Scholar Fred Ikle in his book Every war must end, claimed that governments tend to lose sight of the ending of wars when military men fail to perceive that is the outcome of the war, not the outcome of the campaigns within it, that determines how well their plans serve the nation’s
Only relevant information like data of casualty, time, and involving parties should be preserved. In a nutshell, in this political charged era most of the universal education expect scholars in war only analyze the core causes of the war, which, as Clausewitz states, is politics, for war is essential an continuation of