Students of military history find much to fascinate in the subject: strategy, tactics, weapons, uniforms, battles, and the lives of the great generals. Exactly how wars come about and the ethics of combat may seem secondary issues, yet they are woven into the history: massacres of civilians, execution of prisoners, violations of neutrality, and treacherous surprise attacks all arouse strong feelings, because our instinct is to expect boundaries and rules even in the hell of war.
Written nearly 50 years ago, Walzer’s book is a compelling update to the Classical concept of the ‘just war’. This stands on two key principles: jus ad bellum, which defines the right to begin a war, and jus in bello, which governs the way wars are conducted. As Walzer says, ‘War is always judged twice, first with reference to the reasons states have for fighting, secondly with reference to the means they adopt.’ As he points out with numerous examples, a just cause doesn’t always imply adherence to the rules, or vice-versa. Walzer is accused of being vague about the basis of this set of rules, which he calls ‘The War Convention’. In essence, this posits that soldiers are free – even obliged – to kill other combatants, but that civilians should as far as possible be spared, along with soldiers who are rendered defenceless by wounds or who have surrendered.
Citing US General William Tecumseh Sherman’s 1864 burning of Atlanta, and his infamous quote ‘war is hell’, Walzer considers and dismisses the notion that war is so abhorrent that it cannot be governed by rules. Sherman contended that wars must be concluded as quickly as possible, by whatever means. Walzer also clearly sets out the principle of the integrity of sovereign states, and their right to defend themselves against aggression. But he recognises that the reality can be complex. For example, Bismarck and an expansionist Prussia persuaded a gullible Napoleon III to initiate war – and then executed a well-planned invasion of France. He considers appeasement, too, as a strategy for weak powers. Finland in 1939 was offered a land-swap by Russia in return for pulling its borders back from Leningrad. Finland opted to fight, fearing further land-grabs. Defeated in 1940, they lost even more land than the original deal set out, but their doughty fight salvaged national honour, and no doubt informed their strategy of joining NATO in 2023 after Ukraine’s own plucky stand.
Folklore to the rescue of eels