Professor discusses the role of justice in war

War must be a last resort: there must be reasonable expectations for success and there must be a commitment to the just implementation of the war, said University of Richmond professor G. Scott Davis, who spoke Thursday at the third conference of the Jepson International Public Square series.

Richmond students and professors gathered to discuss the justices and injustices of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Davis, who holds a doctorate from Princeton University and is a professor of religion at Richmond, gave a brief introduction on the requirements for engaging in a just war and conducting a principled war.

Proper authority, just cause and right intention are three motivators for war, Davis said. Since war is a public act, authorities must decide what's best for the community with appropriate moral intentions for every action, he said.

Junior Rasheed Nazeri asked how one could fight a just war against an unjust enemy, referring to al-Qaida's use of civilians as a form of cover, among other unethical warfare practices.

These combatants have no formal affiliation with the state, Davis said. The United States must maintain its commitment to justice, even if that means limiting its level of success, he said.

"Right now, we could successfully dismantle the senior leadership al-Qaida," Davis said. "We could nuke them, but it's grossly disproportionate and violates every conceivable way of prosecuting a war."

If enough civilians are killed, a state cannot convince the public that it's working in its best interest, Davis said. The United States is committed to justice, which means protecting innocent lives at the expense of success, he said.

Leadership professor Joanne Ciulla asked how one could call a motive unjust when each side thought it was acting justly.

"How do we decide who is the criminal and who is the police?" Ciulla asked.

Davis said that people don't often understand what is right until after the fact.

"We don't realize why things are being done until the dust settles," he said.

Each side always believes it is right and it is vital to use the facts available to make rational decisions, Davis said.

Nazeri asked if the Taliban is a legitimate government, since it has considerable control over Afghanistan and harbors al-Qaida terrorists. He then asked if the United States would be justified in declaring war against the state.

"If the Taliban not only harbors, but actively supports these terrorists, then we begin moving to the point where the two entities are incorporated into a single unit," Davis said.

Davis compared the Taliban with a lawyer and al-Qaida with a client who has been charged with criminal conduct.

As long as the lawyer does not directly facilitate the client's illegal activities, and merely represents him or her, the process is legitimate, Davis said.

If the lawyer goes further, then he or she effectively becomes the legal wing of the criminal conspiracy, he said.

Junior Scot Riddell asked how Americans could blame people in Iraq or Afghanistan for pursuing Americans within our borders when we've wronged them by crossing their borders.

International criminal organizations, such as al-Qaida, are not entitled to wage war even if they feel wronged by the United States because they are not legitimate states, Davis said.

There are alternative means to address grievances, and war is an extreme measure that should be used as a last resort, Davis said. If a criminal organization commits a crime on U.S. soil, it is legitimate to pursue action against the group responsible, he said.

Nazeri agreed by adding that when an organization has attacked embassies, military sites and targets within the United States, it takes more than policing to retaliate against it.

"The problem is," Davis said, "these people [al-Qaida] do not believe that they are criminals, which is scary."

Contact staff writer Fred Shaia at fred.shaia@richmond.edu