I disagree. If they were to do this then what would set them apart from a French 5th column in Switzerland? I think this would be crossing the line. If they went out and shielded tax resistors and deserters against the police, even in a midst of defensive war that would be commendable. But to object to the military doing something legitimate and worthwhile like resisting an invading foreign power is different.
I think we can judge such questions best if we break down the events into the most basic component actions. A thief is wrong to steal a revolver. But he is still justified in using this stolen revolver to protect himself and his family against a slaver or a murderer. Even if he is lets say also an abusive father.
I would rather not. In my reading of history guerilla wars can be extremely costly on the civilian population as the guerrillas have no means of protecting them and the occupiers tend to in their frustration resort to brutal repression. If possible it is always better to repel a foreign invasion on your border in a conventional war than to have to fight a guerilla war in your towns and villages.
I would hook up with my unit and fight as a regular.
Well the criteria that it is important to have in mind is ‘by the mere act of fighting who are you aggressing against’. I see that you objected to the Falklands War on the grounds that three civilians were killed. But this does not mean that everyone who fought in that war had to kill a civilian. Was it possible for a soldier to go through with it and not aggress against anyone? It was not for the Argentine soldiers because even in the act of fighting this war there was already aggression (against the Falklanders) contained within it. But for a British soldier maybe it was possible (I would say ‘clearly’ but maybe someone will present some info that I do not know about so I am being careful). Sure it was wrong of them to be tax feeders but that is true in peace time also so it is a separate action.
I certainly agree with almost all of you comment bur two:
: the death of civilians does indeed make that an unliberatrian war, but the fact that it wanst’ about national defense is to be rejected as an argument.
Suppose that the Falklanders where living under anarchy, and they are attacked by . Instead of kicking the argentines themselves, the Falklanders just pay the brits to kick some Argentinean ass for them. Assume too, that in doing so, they stipulate in the contract, that they forfeit every claim to compensation should they be killed, or they property damaged by the action of the British. Would this be an unjust war?
Now, of course that is not what happened, but it is very close. If it weren’t for those 3 civilians who didn’t sign any contract with the British army, that it would be a perfect free-market action.
Action: The very same scenario as above. I own a piece of property in the piece of earth known as . Now, as I’m very successful, the local decide to “nationalize” my property, as it stand on “their” land (!!!) and I’m indeed exploiting Egyptians (there is no such things as “Egyptians”). Now, I decide to pay the British army to kick their asses. The British decidede to share a part of the payment with the French, and both decide to call in the Israelis just for fun. Would that be unjust?
Yet, unlike the “what if” Falkland scenario above, in the crisis**, this is precisely what happened.**
The only thing I can hold against the allies, is that p[perhaps Egyptian civilians where killed outside the Canal area (if they where killed inside, who gives a f..k). So, it is indeed laudable of the Brit that their army was the closes thing ever on this earth to act as a Private Military Corporation.
I don’t agree with this criteria. It should instead be “Is unjust if innocents not involved in the conflict/batte/war etc were harmed, and if so no just punishment was served/provided by the offending party. If no innocents were harmed or offenders were justly punished for such offence, then it passes this point.”