Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

War, by its very nature, is an act that is a display of horror, violence, terror, suffering and most of all death (William Einwechter, 2004). But the question is, can the engagement of a nation in a war be considered just? What exactly is a just war? By definition, a just war is a conflict that is engaged by two nations with a fixed set of rules for combat (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2006). But this exception applies if the two combatants possess similar traits (Philiosophy, 2006). In the Christian perspective, war, or the engagement in it, is bound by certain qualifications to make the war devoid of sin (Einwechter, 2004).God Himself has depicted Himself as a warrior, waging wars on the unrighteous (Einwechter, 2004). It would be understood that if warfare is inherently evil, then warfare would not be a correct and accurate depiction of God's character (Einwechter, 2004). And second, God directly ordered his people to engage in war, to annihilate threats to their country a nd people (Einwechter, 2004). But to better get a grasp of war, we must include in the two views that are inherent in the decision to see if a war is right or wrong.The pacifist belief holds that all war or the engagement in war is inherently wrong, while the realist belief states that in war, all is fair and right (John Buell, 2002). But the concept of engaging in war cannot be deduced to the superiority of one party over the other in terms of military might (Paul Ramsey, 2002). To Christians, what is made as the case for declaring a war unjust is when the commandment against killing is viewed in a legalistic manner, precluding all other interpretations (Ramsey, 2002).The war on terrorism cannot be viewed therefore as a just and correct conflict (Dale Snauwaert, 2002). Terrorism is not an identifiable enemy, just as what God commanded in the ordering of wars against certain and specific people (Einwechter, 2004). As President Bush's statement attests, the war is on terrorism, not o n a single threat of a nation or alliance (Snauwaert, 2002). The President's â€Å"war† is not with a terrorist nation, but an ideology, a strategy (Snauwaert, 2002). Secondly, in the Bush war, the threat is not imminent (Snauwaert, 2002).It is what the government calls â€Å"pre-emptive action†, an attack against a perceived, not an actual, threat (Snauwaert, 2002). The mandate for the use of violence, such as in engaging in war, is the prevention of violence, not the spread of it (David Nils Gyllenhaal). Citing from law enforcement, if a criminal will do more harm if he is not killed, then the actions in war is to stop the incidence of a nation's actions in spreading its violence, and that will take force to accomplish (Gyllenhaal).ReferencesBuell, J. (2002). Just war theory and the wars of the 20th century. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www. yale. edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/2002/3/02. 03. 01. x. html Einwechter, W. (2004). A Christain Perspective on just war. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www. visionforumministries. org/issues/ballot_ box/a_christian_perspective_on_jus. aspx Gyllenhaal, D. (n. d. ). Just war theory: a new church perspective. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www.newphilosophyonline. org/journal/data/111a/Gyllenhaal_Article– New_Philosophy_January-June_2008. pdf. Ramsey, P. (2002). The Just War: Force and Political Responsibilty. Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield 2002 Snauwaert, D. T. (2002). The Bush doctrine and just war theory. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www. trinstitute. org/ojpcr/6_1snau. pdf. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (2006). Just war theory. Retrieved September 24, 2008, from http://www. iep. utm. edu/j/justwar. htm