Just And Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument With Historical Illustrations

I recommend this book for military, political professionals and for philosophers.


This book is ultimately not very instructive about just war   June 11, 2006
 27 out of 56 found this review helpful

At a lecture at West Point United States Military Academy April 6, 2006, Naom Chomsky argued, "Just war theory" literature "deserves special attention but is ultimately not very instructive about just war". "Just war theory" is "declarations of personal preference", which "never tells you anything. It doesn't tell you when it is proper to intervene, what it tells you is 'I think it is proper to intervene'...there is a big gap between assertion and argument, between surmise and evidence." "We learn very little about just war from 'Just war theory'" what we do learn is "mostly about the prevailing moral and intellectual climate in which we live." Walzer's book relies crucially on such premises as "Seems to me entirely justified, or I believe, or no doubt." Chomsky then discusses scientific studies on human behavior which is noticeably absent from Walzer's book.

Walzer uses the term "I think" at least 52 times in the book. "I don't think" 7 times. "I believe" twice, "no doubt" at least 41 times, and "seems to me" 12 times (I write "at least" because the same phrase twice on one page would be counted once.)

Walzer's hypocricy

In a book which suffers from terribly bad organization, on page 62 Walzer finally systematically lays out his arguments, stating that "Once the agressor state has been militarily repulsed, it can also be punished."

On December 29, 2005, in an interview on NPR Morning Edition ('Just and Unjust Wars' Author Critical on Iraq.) Walzer stated that the Iraq war was not a just war:

"If you are going to use military force in someone else's county...There has to be a cause of some urgency, a massacre in progress. A massacre in memory is not a just cause."

Therefore, if you follow Walzer's assertions to its obvious conclusion, the Iraq war was not a just war and therefore "the agressor state", the US, should "be punished."

But Walzer signed and endorsed The Euston Manifesto, which states in part:

"We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country's infrastructure...rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."

Therefore in Just and unjust wars, Walzer argues that "agressor states" should be "punished" but yet Walzer signs a document which criticize those who "pick through the rubble of the arguments over intervention."

Although the Iraq War is not covered in this book, Walzer's inconsistent views on the Iraq war should give serious students of International affairs pause before subscribing to his arguments. It is one mans opinion, full of statments such as "Seems to me entirely justified" "I believe" or "no doubt."

Walzer's arguments are unscientific rablings of one intellectual which are "ultimately not very instructive about just war".






A classic in its field   July 24, 1999
 19 out of 20 found this review helpful

This is an erudite work examining the philosophical subtelties and ethical issues that war evokes. Any one seriously interested in war, applied ethics, political philosophy, and international relations should be familiar with the arguments Walzer uses. The historical examples are standard dilemmas and problems which are useful in class discussions in philosophy as well as history. The only critique I have of the book (which I often use for my own philosophical writing) is that Walzer's ethical examination of war ends with nuclear war--in this I think he is wrong, we should not stop our analysis even with the nightmare scenario of a holocaust, for that is to give the moral hand over to those who would use nuclear arms. The book is challenging and insightful and deserves further reprints.


simply a classic   November 8, 1999
 19 out of 21 found this review helpful

I read a large portion of this book for a course.

For the reader from Washington, DC who only gave this book a one star rating, I would only quote what he/she wrote in his/her comment: "I just don't get this book".

That pretty much reflect why that particular reader doesn't like the book.

First, Walzer is not a "rightist" as some would suggest. He simply accepts the possibility of war. In proposing a link between linkage and war, Walzer simply wants to set some limits as to how far a war can escalate. This is a contribution to the study of war, not an advocacy of war.

Second, Walzer does an exceptional job in using historical examples to illustrate his points. I concede that his examples are based on his interpretations alone and his points are definitely his to make. However, never forget that this book is categorized as "philosophy/political science". Moreover, those who do not make their own interpretations miss the point of reading a book such as this.

Finally, perhaps the biggest point Walzer makes is this: War/conflict is a human creation; its characteristics reflect a wide range of practices that are based on human decisions; and in searching within how humans think, we can see why we haven't killed ourselves yet. And for that, there's still hope for peace.


Great insight   January 19, 2002
 18 out of 19 found this review helpful

Professor Michael Walzer examines just war theory in a clear, methodical and rigorous fashion. Concrete examples clarify and flesh out the theory. It covers not just conventional warfare, but also several offshoots that have become much more relevant since the 1950: peacetime reprisals, guerrilla warfare, and terrorism. In addition, he dissects the notions of "war crimes" and official/bureaucrat/citizen responsibility for war. These analyses are especially useful as today's violent conflicts become more fragmented and in some ways "messier". Walzer's viewpoint is definitely from a left-of-center perspective (not *far* left), but I think people of any political persuasion would find reading it to be extremely insightful. He doesn't shy away from controversy yet his arguments are always well-reasoned. Highly recommended to both the layman and political scientist/philosopher, especially as we enter the uncertainty of the post-9/11 world.