Unwarranted Justification.

In my post regarding Kosovo I wrote that justification for national aggression is unwarranted for two reasons: 1) Human violence is not righted by further human violence; 2) Men are not good and consequently are unable to pursue morally untainted justice (e.g.: justice that is not biased to any degree by greed or revenge). In this post I will develop the first of these two reasons further.

"HUMAN VIOLENCE IS NOT RIGHTED BY FURTHER HUMAN VIOLENCE."
In this statement I presume the end course of justice to be the righting of a wrong...bringing restoration to a situation where wronging has occurred. I do not presume the end course of justice to be protecting one's own or demonstrating power or defending the weak (although all of these should occur in the process of righting a wrong). By describing justice in this manner one can discern a thrust for absolute pacifism. No human violence ever sets a situation right; human violence never achieves ultimate justice.

Human violence cannot restore a situation where human violence has occurred. This is true at the inter-governmental level as much as it is at the interpersonal level. For instance, the Dresden fire bombings were an Allied response to Nazi aggression and genocide during WWII. While these bombings (along with all other Allied military action) did end Nazi oppression, it is also true that non-Nazi German citizens were killed in the Dresden bombings. Additionally it is true that those individuals killed and mistreated by the Nazi's before the Dresden bombings were not restored after the Dresden fire bombings. Those killed by the Nazi's remained dead; those who were mistreated by the Nazi's continued to suffer the memories of their mistreatment. While the result of the bombing (along with other allied aggression) was to eliminate Nazi oppression, the result was NOT to restore the German nation to its pre-Nazi era. Germany as a government and as a land of individuals continued to suffer because of the Nazi aggression and the allied attack. Again this is true at both a political and a personal level. Although the Dresden fire bombings (and all other Allied aggression) may have protected many of the oppressed in Europe, they did not achieve ultimate justice.

Logically speaking I might work it out like this. Premise: Present human violence does not right past human violence because of the wronging that present human violence causes. International aggression is caused by Causes A (racial tension, profit disparity, nationalism, religious conflict, etc.) where Nation 1 attacks Nation 2 because of Causes A. In this situation Nation 2 has been wronged by Nation 1 even if Nation 2 shares in the responsibility for Causes A. Nation 2 may be part to blame for Causes A, however invariably some of Causes A are also due in part to Nation 1. Nation 1 is not morally justified in its aggression because they have not begun from a place of moral innocence. Nation 1's aggression will have done nothing more than to sully its moral record further. While some of Causes A may be remedied through aggression (especially if Nation 1 can dominate Nation 2) the remedy comes through a morally imperfect government which used morally imperfect methods for a morally imperfect end. Nation 1 is unjustified in its aggression because it has killed and injured people as a means to changing Causes A. I believe this reasoning is similar to how just war theorists derive support for war as self defense...Nation 1 unjustly attacked Nation 2, now Nation 2 has the right (duty?) to attack the aggressors in Nation 1 for the purpose of self defense.

Now consider the situation where Nation 2 attacks Nation 1 in self defense. When Nation 2 counter-attacks Nation 1, then Nation 1 may be deterred from further aggression (especially if Nation 2 is much stronger than Nation 1), but further wronging will have occurred in the form of Nation 2 killing and injuring people as a means to deterring Nation 1. Deterring Nation 1 is the objective; killing and injuring people is the means. If Nation 2 has the right to defend against Nation 1 because of aggression, Nation 1 then has the right to defend against Nation 2. Nation 1 is now in the situation that Nation 2 was in before Nation 1 aggressed, excepting that it did not begin from a point of passivity like Nation 2 did. It has the moral right (duty?) to attack the aggressors in Nation 2 for the purpose of self defense.

This cycle of aggression continues until: 1) one country achieves domination of the other, 2) mutual peace agreements are made, or 3) the conditions for warfare are removed (e.g.: a common enemy arrives on the scene, natural disaster strikes). When violent conflict has finally ceased Nation 1 may or may not have ameliorated Causes A and Nation 2 may or may not have preserved its autonomy from Nation 1. Both the amelioration of Causes A and the preservation of Nation 2's autonomy are possible (but not guaranteed) only in situations 2 and 3 mentioned above. In the case of situation 3 the remedy achieved by aggression is temporary because of looming disaster (either from the new enemy or from each other once the threat has passed). In situation 2 there is a good possibility that both the amelioration of Causes A and the preservation of Nation 2's autonomy may endure in an era of peace. Even so, through mutual aggression each country is further wronged by the other. Human beings are either injured or lost in an irreparable manner. Even given the possibility of lasting peace in situation 2, human violence has not restored the situation but has rather added further wronging.

Now the obvious response to this argument follows. "Pacifism would restore the situation only if both countries were committed to pacifism. In our world the likelihood of two non-violently conflicting countries being committed to pacifism is low. In fact it is the country committed to pacifism that would be likely to be attacked by a country committed to aggression. In this case, the pacifist nation cannot right the wrongs of the aggressive nation through its pacifism for the reasons discussed in the above paragraph." Essentially this argument points out that once violence has occurred, irreparable wronging has also occurred whether the victims commit to pacifism or not. Pacifism does nothing more than aggression to bring life back from the grave or to erase the memory of oppression. Once violence has occurred there is no reaching ultimate justice. So what would be the reason for embracing pacifism if not for the sake of justice?

In response to this argument I will give an eschatological reason for a pacifist nation to reject aggressive self-defense. As I mentioned above human justice is never morally perfect. Notice that I do not say that justice is never morally perfect. Rather, humans are incapable of pursuing a morally perfect justice. Justice which is morally perfect comes from a morally perfect person. Such a morally perfect person is not tainted by the whims of revenge or by a greed for power. Such a morally perfect person stands in a place to judge rightly. I would assert that such a morally perfect person exists in in the Jewish God, YHWH. I would also assert that YHWH judges everything. The national leaders and citizens which have pursued human violence are judged by YHWH. The nation which responds to aggression with further aggression has ensured its culpability before YHWH.

Here a Jew (or a Christian) might argue that YHWH chooses to act through the nation (people) that wields the sword. It is not they that are acting independently, rather it is YHWH acting through them. Yes, YHWH acts through the nations on earth; but no the nations through which YHWH acts are not held innocent. As YHWH said to Noah, "The end of all flesh has come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence because of them; and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth." Or as Jesus spoke it, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword."

How will a nation be judged at the climax of all time? When all the historians, political spinners , policy advisers and newscasters have ceased from their labor; when there are no longer wars of nation against nation; just before the time when there will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain. When the Word of God rides in upon His white horse (sword jutting out of His mouth) and strikes down the nations, what national legacy is it that will be pleasing to Him?