Below is the text of an e-mail exchange (in the November 25, 2001 Philadelphia Inquirer), on this question: "Is the U.S. miltary operation in Afghanistan a just war?" Theprincipals in the dialogue are: (speaking against) Joseph Betz, professor of philosophy at Villanova University and an expert on just-war theory; and (speaking in favor) Duane Milne, professor of political science at West Chester University, with an interest in foreign policy and national security.

U.S. in Afghanistan: A just war?  By Joseph Betz

On Sept. 11, a terrible set of coordinated crimes were committed against United States property and persons. Hundreds of
millions of dollars of property was destroyed, and thousands of innocent lives were lost.

The commission of a crime normally begins a process with familiar steps - investigation, detection, arrest, arraignment, trial,
acquittal or conviction, punishment - all taken by or supervised by the proper authorities. To the dismay of those who
believe in the rule of law, these steps have been mixed up and corrupted by confusing them with the doctrines of just war.

War is of two kinds: international and intranational. Intranational war is civil, revolutionary war. That is not the case here.
Nor is it international war, begun with the aggression of one nation against another. No nation committed aggression against
the United States. And the crime committed does not meet the U.N. definition of aggression: the use of lethal force by a
nation in violation of the political sovereignty or territorial integrity of another nation.

No nation acted to take U.S. territory or conquer the U.S. government. Rather than an act of war, a violent hate crime
destructive of American life and property occurred. A criminal band was responsible for this crime. The 19 members of this
band - the immediate perpetrators of the crime - were sufficiently hateful or courageous to sacrifice their lives to take
American lives. But they died without leaving suicide notes, issuing statements claiming responsibility, or explaining what
they were doing. They thus left us puzzled as to whom to blame. Events of the last several years, however - the bombing of
the World Trade Center in February 1993; the bombing of the Khobar Towers U.S. military barracks in Saudi Arabia in June
1996; the American embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya in August 1998; and the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden,
Yemen, in October 2000 - have been investigated and have allowed us to understand that there is a criminal organization of
fanatical Muslim fundamentalists responsible for all these attacks: al-Qaeda or "The Base."

We believe al-Qaeda has cells in more than 60 countries, and that its founder, Osama bin Laden, is now in Afghanistan,
where the organization was founded, ironically, with U.S. aid. At that time, the organization's aim was to expel the infidel
Soviets from Muslim Afghanistan, and this succeeded. And now its aim, among other things, is to expel the infidel United
States from the most sacred soil of Islam, the country of the shrines of Mecca and Medina, Saudi Arabia.

Al-Qaeda is a transnational religious organization, not a nation or a country. It cannot be attacked as such. At best, its cells
can be detected and its members arrested, and this indeed happened in Spain on Monday, as it had in Hamburg, Germany,
last month.

This is the sort of action to which we offended Americans have the right as a remedy. We have no right to wage an
international war. The United States has probable cause to arrest individuals, but it does not have just cause to war on any
nation, especially not Afghanistan.

Afghanistan did not attack us nor train or supply those who attacked us. The Taliban government of Afghanistan violated the
human rights of Afghan citizens, but many national governments do this, and neither we nor others wage military campaigns
against them. The Taliban government refused to deliver the suspects we want for our trials, but we have never turned over
Lt. William Calley for trial in Vietnam for the My Lai massacre, or numerous Latin Americans - including a Cuban who
placed a bomb that exploded a Cuban national civilian airliner - wanted for trials in their own countries.

The Taliban allowed one or more terrorist training camps to operate on its soil, but so has and does the United States allow
the U.S. Army School of the Americas at Ft. Benning, Ga., now called WHISC, to train Latin American terrorists. We do not
want Vietnam or Cuba or Nicaragua bombing and sending troops to invade us to remedy these complaints, and so we should
not do this to Afghanistan. All those with such complaints should seek U.N. help to apprehend and seek to empower the
World Court or its surrogate to try likely offenders in these matters.

Just-war theory requires, to begin a war, a just cause, competent authority, the probability of success, a proportion in the
good achieved by the harm done. There is probable cause to arrest but not just cause to invade. The other requirements of a
just war are lacking as well. The United States is a less competent authority to take the kind of action needed than is the
United Nation. Since al-Qaeda exists in over 60 countries, there is not the probability of success that just-war theory
requires to justify our war in Afghanistan.

Most of all, our war lacks justification on the grounds of proportionality. To kill Osama bin Laden without trial, or to
capture him and some limited number of other commanders of al-Qaeda, we have been making war on a nation of more than
8 million people. We have caused enormous destruction to bridges, roads and buildings there. Our bombs have killed
civilians in their homes and destroyed Red Cross food warehouses and the headquarters of U.N. employees detecting and
removing land mines.

We have disrupted the adequate provision of food to isolated, near-starving villages and have, by our bombing, caused mass
movements of Afghans who travel to locations that do not want them and are not prepared to receive them. We have killed
Afghan government soldiers who are only obeying orders to try to defend their country against a foreign invader and its
internal allies. And all for the sake of what should be the arrest of one or a few. The good of that arrest of one or a few
cannot outweigh the harm we do to many million others. Since we should not be waging a war at all and for other reasons,
ours is an unjust war.

-----------

Sunday, November 25, 2001

An outrage that justifies use of military  By Duane Milne

I support the use of military force as part of a U.S. multidimensional response against terrorism. The initiation of military
operations during the course of our several-pronged strategy is the right policy option to pursue both on principle and on
pragmatic grounds.

As a matter of principle, let us be clear that the most inalienable of rights of a sovereign nation is the right of national
self-defense. Correspondingly, the most fundamental of responsibilities of government is to protect its citizens from attack.
Indeed, if for no other reason, government comes into existence for this very purpose - as the Preamble of the U.S.
Constitution words it, to "provide for the common defence."

In the present matter, no gray area exists. The atrocities of Sept. 11 are no Gulf of Tonkin, no incident in "murky"
international waters, nor some isolated act in a faraway place. Beyond a reasonable doubt, an act of war was perpetuated on
sovereign U.S. soil and against U.S. citizens. Consequently, the national interest (to protect the nation and its citizens) and
the right of national self-defense (to include military action) are as clear and compelling as they have been since World War
II.

The gravity and implications of the Sept. 11 attacks are far too serious to leave unanswered. Their nature, the manner in
which they were executed, and the extent of the destruction left in their wake inherently separate them from any number of
lesser terrorist activities launched against U.S. citizens and interests during the past 20 years. A direct attack on the
homeland creates a category all by itself and therefore demands more than diplomatic protests, sanctions, or the like. In
particular, guarding our future national interests warrants the United States establishing the precedent that a direct attack on
our homeland will trigger a determined response on our part.

Military force must be applied as part of that determined response.

Enemies of the United States - and they certainly exist - are watching our response(s) to the attacks most carefully. If our
enemies conclude that the United States will not respond in a meaningful, systematic fashion, we risk fueling even more
potential terrorist activity than there otherwise would be anyway. Potential enemies will relish too soft a response as a sign
of weakness, as a sign that the United States lacks the will to fight back. Such perceptions of passivity would only embolden
them.

Part of the purpose of the present response, military and otherwise, is to send unequivocal signals to other potential enemies
that the United States will respond to such egregious violations of our sovereignty and will respond strongly. To the extent
possible, enemies of the United States - be they present or future ones - must be steered toward an understanding that certain
kinds of attacks will trigger an overwhelming response simply not worth the price attackers will pay. Not all potential
terrorists are suicidal fanatics; many are in fact rational enough to make the connection.

Engaging the capabilities of the military as one part of the overall response to the current situation will contribute toward a
real and substantial reduction in the capacities of terrorist organizations and nations that harbor them. Eliminating weapons
depots, training facilities, command-and-control capabilities, and other components of terrorist operations will have a
tangible effect on terrorist means. Such strikes demoralize the adherents of terror, undercut the momentum of the anti-U.S.
movement, and eradicate some of the tools required to function effectively.

Hence, for the military part of the overall American response, targeting the terrorist infrastructure is not mere symbolism; it
can and will inflict real damage on their longer-run capabilities. The United States' political and military establishment has
thus far conducted a smart operation. The military has undertaken a very sharply focused attack that has stayed tightly
targeted on the organization that produced the perpetrators of Sept. 11. Our intelligence capabilities far surpass those of any
military or pseudo-military in the world. These apparatuses have been able to identify the exact locations of a good number
of the terrorists' facilities. Therefore, the military can hone in on specific, identifiable targets that either harbor or support
the enemy. This kind of operation, qualitatively different from indiscriminate bombing, represents a responsible and
legitimate way to proceed.

It is critical to remember that the United States' defense against terrorism is more than a military one. Use of military force is
one dimension of the overall strategic response. Military operations are being staged alongside political, diplomatic, legal
and financial measures. None of these dimensions would be fully effective by itself; together, however, they complement
each other and eventually will yield real results in the war on terrorism.

Military force, then, is - and rightly belongs - but one tool in a toolbox filled with many instruments needed to build a
defense against terrorism.

Even though military force is indispensable in the present circumstances, nothing in the foregoing essay represents a facile
suggestion that force is the only answer to terrorism. The unleashing of military force is a very grave matter, entails many
risks, and should be done only with great reluctance. Ideally, force should never actually have to be applied. In the real
world, most regrettably, it is the only language some entities appear to understand. And that lack of comprehension has made
it essential.
----------------------------

Betz's response to Milne's position

I wish to respond on five points:

(1) Milne calls the attacks of Sept. 11 "an act of war," while I call them crimes. A Ku Klux Klan member can attack the
members of the only African American family to dare move into a white neighborhood and call this attack an act of war. But
it is so only analogously and by extension, for the Ku Klux Klan has no capacity for real war.

Milne himself helps establish this very difference when he says that our "right of national self-defense . . . [is] as clear and
compelling as it ha[s] been since World War II." We began World War II when we were attacked by an identifiable nation,
Japan, using its own armed forces. Our attackers on Sept. 11 did not identify themselves, did not constitute a nation, did not
use a nation's armed forces. They are very much a group organized by hate, as is the Ku Klux Klan, and like the Klan in
being capable only of crimes, not an act of war.

(2) Milne speaks of the attacks as "egregious violations of our sovereignty." I do not think that sovereignty is the issue here.
Sovereignty is the condition of political independence and self-rule. Iraq violated Kuwait's sovereignty by invading and
annexing it. What were violated by the attacks were human and legal rights to life and property. Again, these were crimes,
not acts of war.

(3) Milne says the U.S. military "has undertaken a very sharply focused attack that has stayed tightly targeted on the
organization that produced the perpetrators of Sept. 11." A main reason I contend that ours is not a just war is that we have
not done this. Our aim has been first to overthrow the Taliban government of Afghanistan. That is, we are warring against a
nation and its army, and that nation and army did not attack us. In doing so, we are bombing that nation's government
buildings; military forts, camps, positions and soldiers; and its bridges and highways.

If we were only "eliminating" al-Qaeda's "weapons depots, training facilities, command-and-control capabilities, and other
components of terrorist operations," as Milne claims, and if we were doing it the way police seize and destroy Ku Klux
Klan headquarters and weapons caches and arrest its leaders to stop a KKK bombing campaign, then I would not be calling
it an unjust war. But we have been doing much more than this - trying to change Afghanistan's government, killing civilians
with our bombs, causing the movements of large numbers of uprooted refugees, threatening the provision of food to large
parts of the population.

(4) Milne has words of praise for our intelligence capabilities. Yet Friday's New York Times reported that there is likely to
be a Congressional investigation to determine why our intelligence services were so deficient as to provide no warnings of,
or protections against, the Sept. 11 attacks.

(5) Milne speaks of a national "right" or "rights" three times and a national or U.S. "interest" or "interests" three times. I
would suggest that we should be speaking of the human rights of innocent individuals - which the terrorists violated - and of
the U.S. duty not to violate the human rights of innocent Afghans and others as we act to redress the violation of our rights. I
would suggest that we drop the talk of U.S. or national interests entirely. The language of interests is often the language of
that moral and political realism that places one nation's "interests" above the human rights of those in other nations, like in
holding that our national appetite for cheap oil should be satisfied no matter what harm we do to other nations. This was
partly the U.S. motive for the July 1953, CIA-supported overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh (and
our imposition of Shah Reza Pahlavi) in response to Mossadegh's nationalization of oil fields.
-----------------------

Milne's response to Betz' position

In the course of this ambush, the sovereignty of the United States clearly was violated by a foreign entity. Period. And the
violators of such have been clearly identified. Period. These conditions alone sufficiently justify deployment of the military
as part of the United States' multidimensional response.

To that end, the right of national self-defense trumps any considerations as to what degree the attacking entity is or is not a
nation-state. To permit otherwise is to grant cart blanche to all sorts of our enemies to strike with impunity, as if somehow
only nation-states can be held responsible for destructive actions while the same rules don't apply to others.

Arguing we should not wage war in Afghanistan because the real enemy is al-Qaeda would be akin to arguing that, during
World War II, the United States should not have gone into Germany because the real enemy was Nazism. The operating
reality, however, was that Nazism essentially controlled a nation-state (Germany) and worked out of that nation-state.

Similarly, the Taliban functioned as the controlling entity of Afghanistan and actively supported terrorist endeavors. This
entity certainly can be held accountable for actions within its borders. As part of its response, the United States rightfully can
engage its military within Afghanistan.

Let's remind ourselves that America is not attacking Afghanistan per se nor purposefully aiming at the Afghan people. Here it
is quite appropriate to separate the Taliban and al-Qaeda from the nation of Afghanistan. By no means does the strategy
conceptualize Afghanistan as the enemy or center on conquering this country. In fact, quite the opposite. The rapidly
unfolding scenario in Afghanistan is nothing short of a liberation. One only need witness how eagerly and happily substantial
segments of the populace cast off vestiges of Taliban oppression.

What also belies the notion of an unjust war being waged on Afghanistan is the cautiousness of the U.S. military in the use of
its weaponry. Given the amount and depth of firepower at its disposal, the military has been remarkably (and justly)
restrained in what it has unleashed and how it has unleashed it.

Military efforts have tightly targeted the actual enemies of the United States (bin Laden and others) and not the Afghan
territory or people per se. The modus operandi has been the careful identification and selection of targets - namely those that
clearly appear connected with or supportive of bin Laden and the like.

Along the way, the military has (justly) sought with great care to distinguish between civilian and combatant. Even with
regard to combatants, military operations have encouraged and allowed for many enemy soldiers to surrender or switch
sides, to minimize the degree of heavy combat actually needed. All of this is (justly) a far cry from indiscriminate
firebombing or carpet-bombing.

Military action was the most effective way for the United States to pursue and attack the perpetrators. The United Nations,
the International Court of Justice and other international bodies - while of value in certain respects - have no effective
enforcement mechanisms. Even if one or more of them declared bin Laden and others as guilty or deserving of capture, these
entities offer no realistic means of compelling compliance with their decisions. Nor would bin Laden and others pay any
heed to decisions that went against them. It takes sovereign nation-states to police and establish (as much as possible) order
in the international arena.

That is the essence of the present U.S. mission: to orchestrate the efforts of the civilized world against those who choose to
express their viewpoints in an uncivilized manner. If the United States doesn't lead, then who will? The answer likely is,
"No one."