Just Wars? (to be completed...)

(after retrieving my unhappily lost book with all of my notes in it...)

Initially encountering this text, I thought how it was very interesting how Waltzer divides actors in wars:

p. 33
If you...
start war - you are wrong and to blame (and you have the option to end it)
resist war - you are right
join war unwillingly - you are blameless (but in hell)
join war willingly - you are not in hell, but you're also not particularly useful.

This early in the book, his view of morality surrounding wars is curious - if you don't want war, you are obviously in the right.

Intervention, however, is treated a little bit differently. Although joining war willingly is dumb and starting war is wrong, there are situations when not intervening is worse than intervening. However, these are only really truly just when it is a requested action from the inside of a country that will be intervened. (see page 105 for a great example of humanitarian intervention - the Bengalis called for it, and the Indians were in and out really quickly. Basically, this is the shining star).

I think it is interesting, though, how he seems to conclude his thoughts on interventions by making clear that there should be rules about them...because if they are completely outlawed, they will be ungovernable, but if they are regulated, then there is a kind of allowance for them to happen…