Bainbridge on the Israeli-Hezbelloh Conflict Mike Rappaport

Stephen Bainbridge assesses Israel’s actions against Hezbellah and Lebanon under Catholic Just War Doctrine, and finds Israel wanting.  Alas, I find Bainbridge’s arguments less than persuasive.  In fact, I disagree with almost everything in his column.

First, depending on how one interprets it, I don’t find Catholic Just War Doctrine particularly persuasive.  Rather, I find the more utilitarian theory defended by Peter Pham & Michael Krauss, which is criticized by Bainbridge, more to my liking. 

The more damning criticism of the Catholic Just War Doctrine is whether any war that any nation has ever fought satisfies it.  Not the American effort in World War II; presumably not the bombing of Hiroshima; certainly not the Civil War (remember Sherman).  I suppose some of this turns on how one interprets the requirements, but really — if no wars satisfy the theory, then it is not a theory of just war, but a fantasy.  Justice needs to be appropriate to the subject.   War is a  harsh business, and it is important to win.   If Just War theory puts unreasonable limits