If you've been keeping up with current events (and as a cadet, you definitely need to keep on top of the news that's been breaking in the last month or so), you've probably come across reports of peace activists and others claiming that war in general, and the pending war with Iraq in particular, are "immoral" and/or "illegal." You may have heard it said that all wars are immoral, or that war is always lawless. Well, I'm not going to tell you that war is a "good thing," as Martha Stewart would say. Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman described it as Hell, and he'd seen enough of it to know what he was talking about. But there can be peace -- peace that tolerates slavery or genocide, peace that lives in constant fear of aggression or acts of terrorism -- that is worse. The purpose of war is to change the nature of such unjust peace when measures short of war have failed. And despite the strong emotional tones in which war has been denounced as unjust and illegal, and the obvious sincerity of most of those doing the denouncing, the morality and legitimacy of warfare are not just a matter of personal feelings. There are, in fact, objective criteria for determining whether any particular war is just and legal. Together, these criteria form the body of International Law of War, and it is something all future officers must not only be personally familiar with, but must be ready to inform his or her troops about, as well.

That there ought to be rules for warfare is a very old concept, going back all the way to Biblical times. And it was the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, who first named the idea that war ought to be fought for moral reasons by ethical means "Just War." Since then, Just War theory has been developed into a branch of moral philosophy, or ethics, in its own right. It is Just War theory that forms the basis of International Law of War. To General Sherman's famous statement that "War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it," Just War theory responds that " war is indeed cruel, and that is why it is so important to find and implement ways and means of making war less cruel." To the great Roman orator Cicero's statement that "in time of war the law is silent," Law of War answers that "in time of war is when law should speak out the loudest."

Law of war has been through many changes throughout its long history as Greek philosophy, Judeo-Christian theology, and eventually secular Law of Nations. But it has always rested on two equally important pillars. These are the law concerning the decision to go to war in the first place (known as jus ad bellum), and the law concerning how war is fought once it has been declared (known as jus in bello). You can think of them as the aims and the means warfare. Jus (pronounced yoos) ad bellum, which I will talk about in this column, concerns the conditions under which use of military force is allowable if it is to be considered just war, and is primarily a political responsibility. In the US, responsibility for this decision rests with Congress, and not our Armed Forces. The individual service member may vote, like any other citizen, for Senators and Representatives to represent his views to Congress. But Congress alone has the constitutional power to declare war. Jus in bello, which I will talk about in my next column, concerns the rules governing how just warfare may be conducted, and is largely a military responsibility. If you choose a military career, as many cadets do, that is going to mean you.

Going to war is a one of the most troubling moral decisions any people has to make. Justice in going to war helps by setting out certain conditions for the just use of military force on the part of a nation:

1. War must be fought for a just cause. The definition of just cause has varied over the centuries. In Roman times, it included revenge; in the Middle Ages, the spread of religion. But it is not just any old thing a person might think is important. In fact, over the years just cause has been narrowed down until today it is pretty much limited to defense of one's own nation, or allies, after some act of aggression has been taken against them by another nation. The doing of this kind of justice through warfare might even be stretched, as we did in the recent Kosovo air war, to include defending the victims of genocide from aggression coming from within their own nation, though that was controversial at the time. It is possible that two warring peoples may both believe they have just causes, but they are seldom, if ever, of equal moral weight. In our own Civil War, the Confederacy fought for states' rights while the Union fought to end slavery. Both of these were good causes, but freedom for all citizens was far and away the greater of them. What a nation may not do in the name of just war is go to war for the unjust purpose of enriching itself or expanding its borders, or to annihilate a disliked minority ethnic group or force its majority religion on so-called "infidels." The fear that another nation is going to attack does not ordinarily qualify as just cause for pre-emptive strikes. But, when attacks of an unusually horrifying nature (such as terror attacks with weapons of mass destruction) are known with reasonable certainty to be imminent, a nation does have the right to defend its civilian population by pre-empting such attacks.

2. There must be some proportionality between the harm that will be done to the offending nation to get it to stop its aggression and the harm that it has already done and will do in the future if that aggression is allowed to continue. While many critics of war with Iraq are deeply concerned, as we should be, with the harm that may be done to Iraqi non-combatants, we must also consider what harm will come to innocent civilians around the world if radical Muslim terrorists are allowed to threaten us all with weapons of mass destruction provided by Iraq.

3. Wars must have a reasonable chance of succeeding. This is an honest rational assessment that the government of the weaker side in a potential conflict must make. Although some peace activists talk as though such a thing exists, there is no moral or legal requirement that opposing armies be of equal size or equally well equipped. And all other things being equal, as the French Philosopher Votaire once said, "God is on the side of the big battalions."

4. War may be declared by legitimate authority only. Under the US Constitution, that authority is Congress. The 1973 War Powers Act allows the President to commit troops to combat without congressional approval. However, he must notify and consult with Congress within 48 hours, and combat must end within 60 days unless Congress approves the continued use of armed intervention. Congress may decide to declare wars you might not think just (Vietnam is an example of a conflict many American service members though unjust), and not declare some you might feel should be fought. In either case, an officer's oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic," means they have freely taken on the duty to fight the wars that Congress does declare. You do not have the option to pick and choose the wars you will fight and those you will not.

5. When war is declared it must be done publicly. This is to ensure that the government does not act on its own accord, and according to the will of the voting public. This includes you as voting citizens of the US. And when it comes to war, the decisions Congress makes are just too important to you for you to allow your views to go unrepresented.

6. War ought to be a last resort, when all other reasonable means of resolving a conflict have been exhausted. Many peace activists talk as though last resort means that all options ought to be considered indefinitely. But some options are so wrong, so unjust (allowing a nation to continue genocide, or knuckling under to terrorist demands that we alter our foreign policy to allow some countries in a region annihilate the population of another, for instance) that it would not be just or moral to negotiate such things. Also, last resort is meant only to restrain nations that are considering starting, but have not yet started, a war. Last resort goes out the window once a nation has been attacked. Since war has already war been declared on it, it may respond without further delay for negotiations; it has already been pushed past the point of last resort.

Without due consideration to these conditions, no war, no matter how nobly fought can be considered just and therefore legal. But justice in going to war is not enough to make a war a just one. Next time we'll take a look at the other side of this coin, justice in waging war, or the idea that no war, no matter how just its cause etc., can be considered just and moral if it is unjustly fought. If you think that ends justify any means, I hope to make you think again.