By Ellen Russell Beatty
Ponder This
Ellen Russell Beatty
As I embarked on my college education, young people in the US were coming of age in the context of antiwar sentiment related to Vietnam. I and most of my fellow students held opinions about the war based loosely on ideas shared mostly from home, mainstream and print media, or influence from peers.
Located on the eastern border of the Southeast Asian mainland, Vietnam was a distant and unknown place capturing so much of our attention during those turbulent times. A required course in philosophy steered us toward analysis of our thoughts and subsequent opinions on the war. As students, we were correctly directed to learn more about the history, culture and geographical location of countries and policies before discussing the best approaches to the conflict.
A remarkable educator guided our novel discussion of such complex issues as war and the pursuit of peace. Sometimes, the greater good requires fighting to preserve peace and stability in the long run.
Thomas Aquinas, influenced by Augustine, Aristotle and Greek examination of the ethics of war, analyzed conditions in which war might be considered just. Our philosophy professor led us as a class to examine quite competently what might be the conditions of engaging in just war.
Our previously drawn conclusions were not the central point or even a peripheral concern. Our teacher was less interested in our individual, preconceived notions than in our developing ability to think critically. Our analysis assisted our exploration of rationales and the application of principles to draw conclusions. The point of this exploration was to engage in the process of analysis that might lead to an informed opinion or proper decision.
All classroom dialogue, based on our readings, veered away from arguments of a binary nature, such as pro and anti-communist forces within the conflict. Strong emotional beliefs, however well-intentioned or correct, were not tolerated. The bigger question was: is there a just cause for war? If so, how is this decided and by whom? We turned to reading the concise version of “Summa Theologica,” Aquinas’s theory on just war.
This process of decision-making can be used in other instances of foreign policy. Our collective experiences in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan can inform us and help us to improve outcomes.
This debate hinges on the idea that there is legitimate authority to wage war. Legitimate authority is more than simply power. A just war always minimizes harm and injury to civilians and noncombatants.
These are essential question that must direct our dialog about Venezuela. Is military action a condition of last resort? Have all legitimate sources of authority been included in the decision making? Have all diplomatic and political approaches been fully exhausted?
War must be supported by good intentions and reasonable chances of success. The means of war must be proportional to the end or purpose the war seeks to achieve.
These are considerations and questions of an informed, responsible citizenry and must not be viewed merely as voices of dissent. It would be remiss not to ask about the legitimacy of the Venezuela military maneuvers, whatever we might think about the leaders involved.
Sadly, it sometimes seems beyond our collective ability to engage in unbiased dialogue about national foreign policy. Mass media and ever-present social media may have diminished all argument to limited choices so that we no longer can discuss a range of options that are not simplistic or binary.
The notion of good and bad in war requires reflection on what is truly at stake. One cannot reflect on this properly if options are limited to two choices. In the case of events leading up to the Venezuela conflict, there seems to be a “do all or do nothing “argument that limits our options.
My inclination, like many Americans around me, is to want to “clobber the dictator,” Nicolas Maduro. Punishment is not in and of itself good or bad. The purpose of punishment must be to obtain a remedy or to settle a debt. Aquinas taught that a legitimate means of settling a debt inflicted by a person who commits evil acts is to punish them. Inflicting harm can be justified. Retribution does have a legitimate place in the just execution of punishment when the intention is to prevent harm or to remove opportunity to commit further crimes. Our discussion must center around the state’s obligation to take action to defend against crimes and protect the community.
But what is the remedy? How can the debt inflicted on individuals and a community by a dictator such as Maduro be settled? This is one of the important questions that should be before us. There has been some argument that it is not necessary to have a post-punishment plan in place. This suggests that the plan to rehabilitate the “bad” actions that have been perpetrated will emerge as the evil is removed. But that assumption flies in the face of the justification for the retaliation in the first place. How could the invasion, arrest and capture of this bad actor be justified unless a remedy that brings about a greater good be on the agenda? This is the most important criterion for a just war.
Let us stop talking at each other about the pros and cons of invading Venezuela, or any other country. We must explore more important questions. At what cost? To what gain or end? What is the long-term remedy for a nation of 23 million people? It is not partisan or biased to question whether funds might be diverted more judiciously for the greater good.
It would be a grave misstep to reduce our analysis to what seems right at this moment. Failing to consider these broader questions risks undermining the entire war project.
War must be supported by good intentions. There must be reasonable chance of success. Aquinas speaks of the prince who solely declares war as an example of weak justification. The means must be in proportion to the end or purpose the war seeks to achieve.
Even a just war can deteriorate into an unjust one if the means of engagement become inappropriate or illegitimate. In the case of Vietnam, there were objections by many to the use of chemical agents on civilians. In the Middle East today, the initial justification of being coerced into responsive warfare as legitimate retaliation may be criteria for just war. Conditions still require further examination to determine if the means of engagement are now justified. Are such results as famine, injury to noncombatants and harm to aid workers to be tolerated as just warfare? There are limits to waging a morally justified war.
Like most Americans I am unsettled by the lack of civility among some elected officials and the extreme divisiveness and partisanship in our political discourse. What distresses me most, however, is the low level of discourse that we have allowed to command our interactions. We can and must do better. It is within our control to correct and dissuade when discussions become embarrassingly low. Let’s return to the higher ideals that drive us; we can do better.
Dr. Ellen Russell Beatty served five terms on the Milford Board of Aldermen. She served seven years as Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs at Southern Connecticut State University, and also served as interim Academic Vice president, Dean of Health & Human Services and Director of Faculty Development. In addition to the broad perspective and a multitude of skills required of high-level administrators, her areas of special expertise lie in strategic planning, accreditation, assessment and planning and budgetary allocation.