Shue's "War"

I felt that Shue's reading, while still philosophical, was much better presented than most of the other readings because it had many more concrete examples and more clear ideas. But I still feel that some of it gets lost in situations that are easy to theorize about, like the example of the military, the civilians, and the bridge, but are different in real life.

Anyway, at the same time I almost feel as though there is little point to talk over a just war or not. War has been happening for centuries and unfortunately will probably continue for a long while. Despite what Shue says on the subject, even if there are supposed parameters for a just war, people will find ways to justify their war somehow.

A good example is Shue bringing up Vitoria philosophy on the matter, who started off saying that it is immoral to kill women and children but then steps back to say "well if they could possibly be a threat later, it could be justified". That line in so broad it could so easily be used to justify anything, along with his example of the use of "innocent" and a citizen's responsibility. And at certain points Shue talks about war is justifiable to protect the weak and innocent but even he admits his analogy working only if one thinks "they are on the right side of the war", well doesn't everyone? Shue even says many times in history people have thought themselves right and been wrong and vice versa. Which for me, goes back to the idea of how a justification of protecting the weak could easily be used for an actually unjust war.

To me, it was most sensible when talking about the jus in bello. Because those are more easily measurable and enforceable, and like the example of the "highest body count" like in Vietnam points more to the unjustness of the war, than the intents. But at the same time I worry, like the pacifists mentioned by Shue, that if lines are drawn and while more concise than war justification but still fuzzy exist, there are always people willing to toe the line and push it to it's limits. But as I said before, the so called "rules of war" are better tools for measuring the justness of a war but at the same time are limited by they are usually measured after the fact and tend then just become history.