The video covers the concept of "just war theory," a longstanding ethical framework to determine if and how wars can be justified. The case of the 2003 Iraq War, initiated by President George W. Bush, serves as the main example to discuss the six criteria of jus ad bellum, the "right to wage war." These criteria include having a just cause, right intention, legitimate authority, likelihood of success, proportionality of good over harm, and exploring all alternatives before resorting to war. The video's analysis suggests the challenges in meeting these criteria when examining the Iraq War.

Just war theory is not only about the decision to start a war but also considers how wars should be conducted once begun, termed as jus in bello. It insists on targeting only legitimate military threats and minimizing civilian casualties, alongside ensuring the destruction aligns with the intended outcomes. The complications of assessing these aspects during the Iraq conflict are highlighted, with significant criticism for actions that many, including scholars, deemed fell short of the ethical standards expected from a "just war."

Main takeaways from the video:

Please remember to turn on the CC button to view the subtitles.

Key Vocabularies and Common Phrases:

1. invaded [ɪnˈveɪdɪd] - (verb) - Entered a country or region with armed forces, typically to occupy it by force. - Synonyms: (conquered, attacked, occupied)

When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, I was an 8th grader more concerned with starring in my middle school musical than with foreign relations.

2. ultimatum [ˌʌltɪˈmeɪtəm] - (noun) - A final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations. - Synonyms: (demand, warning, final notice)

On March 17, 2003, President Bush issued a public ultimatum.

3. proportionality [prəˌpɔrʃəˈnælɪti] - (noun) - A principle in just war theory that the violence used in the war must be proportional to the attack suffered. - Synonyms: (balance, equivalence, commensurateness)

Would going to war do more good than harm? This is called proportionality, and it asks us to imagine two possible futures, one with the war and one without it.

4. doctrine of double effect [ˈdɒktrɪn əv ˈdʌbəl ɪˈfɛkt] - (noun phrase) - A principle allowing for consequences of actions that have both good and bad effects, where the negative effects are not intended. - Synonyms: (ethical principle, moral rule, double effect)

This falls under the doctrine of double effect, which says that serious harm can be caused only if it's a side effect of your attempt to do good.

5. preemptive [priˈɛmptɪv] - (adjective) - Intended to forestall something, especially to prevent attack by disabling the enemy first. - Synonyms: (preventive, anticipatory, deterrent)

Turns out with just war theory, the answer falls somewhere in between. Folks often distinguish between preemptive action, where there's evidence that the enemy is about to attack, and preventive action, where the enemy might attack.

6. legitimate authority [lɪˈdʒɪtəmɪt ɔːˈθɒrɪti] - (noun phrase) - A recognized or legal power to govern or make decisions, especially in declaring war. - Synonyms: (lawful power, rightful government, authorized command)

How do we determine who's a legitimate authority? And what happens if an illegitimate authority attacks? Criterion 4 looks at the likelihood of success

7. preventive action [prɪˈvɛntɪv ˈækʃən] - (noun phrase) - Measures taken to deter an event that is anticipated but not imminent, contrasted with preemptive. - Synonyms: (precautionary, protective, safeguarding)

Folks often distinguish between preemptive action, where there's evidence that the enemy is about to attack, and preventive action, where the enemy might attack

8. jus ad bellum [jʌs æd ˈbɛlʌm] - (noun phrase) - The right to go to war, outlining the criteria under which it is justifiable for a nation to wage war. - Synonyms: (just war criteria, criteria for war, war justification standards)

jus ad bellum asks, what should a nation consider before going to war?

9. jus in bello [jʌs ɪn ˈbɛlʌm] - (noun phrase) - The laws that regulate how wars are fought, to ensure they are conducted justly. - Synonyms: (war conduct ethics, justice in war, wartime principle)

The ethical criteria for after you've started fighting a war called jus in bello or justice in war.

10. jus post bellum [jʌs pɒst ˈbɛlʌm] - (noun phrase) - The aspect of just war theory that deals with the justice after a war, including terms of peace and post-conflict justice. - Synonyms: (post-war justice, war aftermath rules, conflict resolution)

Like any idea that's been around for millennia, just war theory is still evolving. Recently, philosophers have introduced jus post bellum justice after War, which asks what's the right thing to do when a war is over?

What Are the Rules of War? Just War Theory

When the United States invaded Iraq in March 2003, I was an 8th grader more concerned with starring in my middle school musical than with foreign relations. But there was something that stood out to me about that time. In the year leading up to the invasion, President George W. Bush and members of his administration seemed to be making a case to the American public and Congress that the US should go to war against Iraq. Flash forward 20 plus years and I could see that Bush and his team were at least outwardly engaging with something called just war theory, an ethical framework used to decide when it's acceptable to go to war and how that war should be fought. So what is just war theory, and how do we decide if a war is ever just?

I'm Ellie Anderson, and this is crash course political theory. The Bush administration was making its arguments for war in the early 2000s, but it turns out that theories around the ethics of war go back millennia. For example, the 13th century Italian philosopher Thomas Aquinas really set the stage for just war theory as we know it. I learned that there are two main categories, and of course, they're in Latin. jus ad bellum asks, what should a nation consider before going to war? And jus in bello asks, how can a nation make sure the war they're already fighting stays just?

jus ad bellum, or the right to wage war takes six criteria into consideration when deciding whether going to war is justified and it can't meet just one or two. All six need to be met, which, as you can imagine, is pretty difficult to do. Okay, so criterion one, does a nation have a good moral reason to go to war, also known as just cause. For example, a widely accepted reason to wage war is self defense. And this is one of the levers the Bush administration pulled to make their case.

In his 2002 State of the Union address, four months after the September 11 terrorist attacks, President Bush warned Americans about Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's hostility toward the US And a few months later, Vice President Dick Cheney said in a speech this there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. But what are the limits of self defense? Can you take action if you think someone is about to attack you, or do you have to wait for them to do it first? Turns out with just war theory, the answer falls somewhere in between. Folks often distinguish between preemptive action, where there's evidence that the enemy is about to attack, and preventive action, where the enemy might attack. The latter, as you might imagine, is much harder to justify. Bush officials argued that because Hussein failed to abide by UN weapons resolutions, we couldn't trust him, even though we had no definitive proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. So this approach would likely be considered preventive rather than preemptive.

Okay, criterion two. Let's say a nation does have just cause. It also needs to have the right intention for going to war. Basically, the cause is the thing that started it all, and the intention is the goal. So we might ask, is this war ultimately trying to achieve something good beyond protecting Americans from the possibility of future attack? The Bush administration asserted that their intention was to depose Saddam Hussein and bring democracy to Iraq. And there's no question that Hussein was a brutal dictator. In one instance, during his nearly 30 year rule, he unleashed poison gas on a Kurdish village that killed 5,000 people. He suspected of disloyalty. But many Americans were and are suspicious of the Bush administration's intentions. And even if the war was justified for humanitarian reasons, it's complicated.

Kofi Annan, the UN Secretary General at the time, said that the invasion of Iraq violated the UN Charter. And millions of people protested across the globe, forming the largest peace demonstration since the Vietnam War. An intention to defend human rights sounds noble, but that doesn't necessarily mean it passes the just war test. Next is criterion three. Only a nation can declare a war, not an individual. Finally, an easy one. In the case of the US invading Iraq, we can check this box. Except what constitutes a nation? Does it have to be an internationally recognized state? Sometimes the legitimacy of the nation is precisely what's in dispute. Like in the Israel Gaza war that began in 2023. How do we determine who's a legitimate authority? And what happens if an illegitimate authority attacks?

Criterion 4 looks at the likelihood of success. Traditional just war theory says that a nation should only go to war if they have a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, it's just a waste of human life and resources. This might seem unfair on the surface. I mean, what about the underdogs? But it makes sense when you think about the high costs of war, some of which can continue long after the war is over. But to consider the likelihood of success means defining what success looks like. Is it deposing Saddam Hussein? Destroying weapons that might be turned on the US Setting up a democratic government? Mission accomplished isn't always a straightforward idea.

And all of this brings us to criterion five. Would going to war do more good than harm? This is called proportionality, and it asks us to imagine two possible futures, one with the war and one without it. Just war theory says that a nation should only go to war if the peace that would be achieved is greater than if the war had never started. At this point, I'm feeling like justifying a war requires a magically foolproof crystal ball. Even if we can answer some or all of these questions, we can't predict the future. At least I can't. But before I throw in the towel, there's one last criterion to contend with.

Is war the last resort? Just war theory says that a nation should only go to war after it has tried every other means possible to get what it wants. Is there a diplomatic option? Can its goal be achieved nonviolently? And these questions just beget more questions like how do you know what alternatives are available? Or who decides when they've been fully exhausted? Fully exhausted. On March 17, 2003, President Bush issued a public ultimatum. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours. Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict commenced at a time of our choosing. Hussein did not comply. And on March 20, the Iraq war officially began.

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people, and to defend the world from grave danger. Which takes us to the next portion of just war theory. The ethical criteria for after you've started fighting a war called jus in bello or justice in war. First, a warring nation can only aim at legitimate targets. Enemy combatants are fair game, but civilians should be spared. This falls under the doctrine of double effect, which says that serious harm can be caused only if it's a side effect of your attempt to do good. Like if a bomber targets military facilities and doesn't intend to kill civilians, even if they know that's likely to happen, that's considered morally acceptable. Whereas targeting civilians as a means of invoking terror isn't. Sadly, in reality, civilians die in the crossfire of war all the time. At least 200,000 Iraqi civilians were killed during the eight year conflict.

Second, the damage from war to people, infrastructure and the environment must be proportionate to the ends achieved, which is again, very difficult, very morally ambiguous math. And third, is each action necessary? Everything you do during the war must be necessary to pass the just war test, which is a tall order and one that's particularly challenged by the US's treatment of political prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad. So was the Iraq war justified? Many people would say no. This survey from the Pew Research center found that 62% of Americans believed the war wasn't worth fighting. And scholars such as Christian Enemarch and Christopher Michelson, who've analyzed the war across each of the just war criteria came to similar conclusions.

But some still argue that the Iraq war was justified, including former Vice President Dick Cheney. Speaking at Cornell University in 2018, Cheney said, I think the world is a better place without Saddam in it. I think the president had all the justification he needed. In war as in life, hindsight is 20 20. I wasn't in any war room as these decisions were made, so I can't speak to how philosophical the conversations got. But the standards of just war theory are high, and meeting all the criteria isn't easy, which makes sense given how much is at stake.

As we've seen, there are challenges and complications to all of the just war criteria. And these hard questions only get harder when you consider the wide variety of cultures at play. Warring nations might have radically different moral perspectives on things like how prisoners should be treated or what humane rules of engagement look like. And then there's technology, which adds another layer. Drones let combatants target people as easily as playing a video game, and lethal autonomous weapon systems use AI to target and destroy enemy fighters. All of these advances in technology complicate the questions of just war theory even further.

It doesn't surprise me that some people push back against the whole premise altogether. For example, feminist scholar Lucinda Peach points out that women have historically been excluded from discussions about war, which disregards the life altering impacts of war for countless women and children around the world. Like any idea that's been around for millennia, just war theory is still evolving. Recently, philosophers have introduced jus post bellum justice after War, which asks what's the right thing to do when a war is over? If the point of a just war is to achieve peace, then combatants should be held accountable afterwards for their actions during war. And the rules of peace should be established too.

So here's where I've landed It's really hard to determine if war is ever truly just, and that makes sense. These are questions with numerous answers and holes can be poked in every one of them. Just war theory is more than a simple checklist. It's a lens that we can use to interrogate our leaders decisions and to ask questions about history today and what's to come. Next time we'll talk about what makes a good leader and if that includes being a good person. See you then.

POLITICAL THEORY, JUST WAR THEORY, ETHICS, EDUCATION, POLITICS, TECHNOLOGY, CRASHCOURSE