George H. Smith: Thinking About War

by Liberty and Power

Liberty has now published George Smith's essay on just war theory, in which he discusses what (1) Murray Rothbard and (2) Objectivists Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein have written about the subject.

A few thoughts. His essay is a well-informed discussion that is grounded in a considerable knowledge of the history of political thought. That said, I note that more than once he elides the distinction between country and nation-state. And I am struck by how much Smith (sometimes by default), Walzer, and Brook and Epstein assume particular historical accounts as true. Consider the following examples, viz.,"Islamic terrorism," the origins of the Six-Day War, Sherman's March through Georgia, and the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

"The authors were not satisfied with presenting their version of just war theory and its application to the ongoing conflict with what they describe (correctly, I think) as "Islamic Totalitarianism."" (Smith)

"On the contrary, he [Michael Walzer] emphatically maintains that an objective threat can justify a preemptive war, e.g., of the sort that Israel fought during the "Six-Day War" in 1967:..." (Smith)

"This is why, although Sherman's actions helped to end the Civil War, he is a reviled figure among Just War theorists: His goal was to preserve his side by inflicting unbearable misery on its enemy's civilian population — the opposite of "good intentions." Many Just War theorists hold — as by their standard they are obliged to hold — that the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was immoral. America, they claim, should have valued Japanese civilians over the hundreds of thousands of GIs who would have died invading Japan." (Brook and Epstein)

So much of modern just war theory, including George Smith's account, seems to have very little, if anything, to say about the relationship between war and the state. I'm not just thinking along the lines of Randolph Bourne's dictum, War Is the Health of the State, although that is part of it. I'm also thinking of how the state makes wars and that discussion of just war theory is divorced from the historical realities of state making and war making. That's why so much of contemporary libertarian discussion on this issue, such as it is, reminds me of medieval theologians debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Mark Brady - 4/16/2008

George,

Thanks for posting. It's been many years since we met, but I have fond memories of your lectures at various seminars and our informal conversations over the years.

I fear that I've failed to communicate at least some of what I had in mind in my original post. Too often this is what happens when we blog rather than engage in actual conversation.

1. When I wrote "Smith" and "Brook and Epstein" in parentheses, I was merely seeking to identify the author(s) of the passages I quoted. I completely agree that you "mentioned the Six-Day War in the context of Walzer's views, not as an expression of [your] own." That's why I inserted the name of Michael Walzer into the quotation to make it clear that you were citing Walzer and not stating your own belief. My general point was how writers (you on "Islamic totalitarianism", Walzer on the Six-Day War, and Brook and Epstein on Sherman's March and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) assume particular historical accounts to be true when all of these, and many more, are in fact hotly contested. For example, I suggest their case for dropping the atomic bomb rests in part on the assumption that the U.S. was right to demand that Japan surrender unconditionally.

2. I understand what you were doing and, on your own terms, you wrote an informative essay that I shall keep and refer to in future and recommend other people to read it. I certainly agree with you that Brook and Epstein's discussion of just war theory was a travesty, and you made this very clear. Although your essay was the occasion for my brief comments, my criticism of the present state of discussion of just war theory was directed not so much at your contribution, rather at the debate as a whole.

Take care,

Mark

George H. Smith - 4/15/2008

I am puzzled by Mark Brady's claim that (in "Thinking About War") I assumed, if only tacitly, that "particular historical accounts" are true. For example, I mentioned the Six-Day War in the context of Walzer's views, not as an expression of my own.

Similarly, I mention Sherman only to explain the views of Brook and Epstein, and I don't discuss the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at all.

To have delved into the factual disputes over these issues would have taken the article far off course and detracted from the points I wished to make. (The original article did contain a brief, critical discussion of Sherman, but this was deleted for reasons of space.)

Moreover, if it is true that I slur over "the distinction between country and nation-state" and "have very little, if anything, to say about the relationship between war and the state," this is because my article was primarily about something else -- namely, the various ways in which Brook and Epstein misrepresented just war theory.

Nevertheless, I do note that modern libertarians cannot accept traditional just war theory "as is," owing to such problems as the "analogy between self-sovereignty and state-sovereignty."

One can only do so much in one article. Some of Marks comments amount to little more than saying that if he had written an article on just war theory, he would have written it differently than I did.

That is doubtless true, but I chose to focus on the points raised by Brook and Epstein.

As for how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- such discussions were quite important to those theologians who discussed the nature of angels, especially their incorporeality.

If anything would be irrelevant to an exchange with Objectivists about just war theory, it is expanding on Bourne's dictum that war is the health of the state. That argument would have gotten me exactly nowhere.

Ghs