We live in an imperfect world where human interactions breeds frictions occasioned by participation of different individuals in matters of society, economics and even religious inclinations of the different masses. Human beings have voluntarily or involuntarily found themselves in different areas of life due to their races or ideologies and consequently have had to act in line with a certain set of belief. Therefore this has bred differences in how a different society approaches issues relating to both governance and interaction and lack of consensus among individuals and sometimes groups within and without have led to violence.
This violence is sometimes political and involves a set of organized military groups fighting for a certain goal that is usually political in nature. War is rough on the participants and mostly on innocent civilians caught in the middle of the chaos. The questions that strongly begs a just answer is “can there be a just war. ” Hedge (2002) claims that in essence there is not much difference between the U S government and Alqueda arguing that despite what motives drives them to violence both the outcome is death of innocent civilians.
However there are those who feel that to agree with Hedge would be to deny that there cannot be moral reasons to go to war and that the presuppositions behind the just war theory are fallacious and misguiding. In this regard it would be equal to agreeing that no reason should drive a country to wage war on another or even that terror groups must be allowed to exploit the weakness of less able nations in order to bring terror to perceived enemies.
In my opinion such a stand is untenable and unrealistic and a way to avoid taking responsibility in accordance to the natural laws of justice that guarantees freedom and rights of individuals (Zupan, 2004). It is therefore important to highlight that it is hypocritical to deny that a party might be justified to wage war to counter similar aggressiveness or as way of stopping gross violations against fellow human beings. All human beings have a right to life is a clearly accepted fact and anything that contravenes such a fact would ordinarily be considered immoral and against fundamental pillars of justice, rights and freedoms.
However whereby a war has been taken as to being justified then a waiver is taken in order to grant the involved parties the right to take away the lives of those perceived to be the enemies. In addition the loss of civilian life in the course of such a war is simply taken to be the costs of bringing such changes as necessitate that war. Hedge actually accuses Washington of stooping so low as to use death as a means of expressing its dissatisfaction with certain issues (Hedge, 2002).
In other wars certain groups of people who previously viewed as morally incorrect might receive a change of perceptions simply because they direct their atrocities to the perceived enemy. In this regard the common phrase that an enemy of my enemy is my enemy becomes true. There are those who would argue for the sovereignty of nations and that a state has a right from external interference. In ordinary times such a status applies and there are clear efforts to observe and even promote the status quo. However in times of war sovereign borders are breached and this usually leads to the removal of leadership or occupation of such state.
Hedge (2002) however seeks to point out that while he is not a war supporter, that it is sometimes important to use force to counter a force that is much immoral as compared to the countering force. It is therefore important then that we must understand that we have a moral responsibility to take care not to ignore or indeed breach the fundamental rights of citizens as we engage in war. Hedges, C. (2002). War Is a Force That Gives Us Meaning. New York: Anchor books. Zupan, D. (2004). War, Morality and Autonomy. London: Ashgate publishings.