This response is part of a special symposium on "The Ethics of America's Afghan War" from the journal's summer 2011 issue. To read the lead article by Richard W. Miller, and responses by George R. Lucas, Jr., Jeff McMahan, Darrel Moellendorf, and Fernando R. Teson, here.
In "The Ethics of America’s Afghan War," Richard W. Miller argues that reflecting on whether and how to end the war in Afghanistan exposes serious deficiencies in just war theory. I agree, though for different reasons than those canvassed by Professor Miller. Miller argues that by focusing on the traditional categories of just cause, proportionality, and necessity (or last resort), just war theory obscures the importance of broader geostrategic considerations that he believes are the most plausible—though ultimately for Miller insufficient—rationale for continuing with the strategy of large-scale counterinsurgency in Afghanistan. I doubt that geostrategic considerations can play the role in moral assessment that Miller believes they do. But the phenomena he is pointing to do illuminate important defects in traditional just war theory.
To read or purchase the full article, click here.
More in this issue
Fall 2011 (25.3) • Feature
Smart Sanctions Revisited
There are considerable difficulties with targeted sanctions. Some of these difficulties may be resolved as these measures continue to be refined. Others are rooted in ...
Fall 2011 (25.3) • Feature
Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal?
The legality of humanitarian intervention is essentially indeterminate. No amount of debate over the law or recent cases will resolve its status; it is both ...