Questions for February 26

 

Walzer – Chapters 5 and 7

 

1.      Give Walzer’s general definition of anticipation, then describe the ‘spectrum’ of anticipations.

 

2.      Explain how preventive war ‘prevents’ power imbalances.  What are the two propositions to support this contention and what is a ‘second level’ utilitarian response to those propositions?  What is the problem with preventive war for the purpose of maintaining the balance of power?

 

3.      What are pre-emptive strikes?  What does Walzer think justifies a pre-emptive strike?  What was the six-day War, and how is it an example of a pre-emptive strike?

 

4.      Reflecting upon what Walzer has written in Chapter 5, was the recent Iraq war a just ‘anticipation’?  Discuss whether it was a preventive war, a pre-emptive war, or both.  How can we tell, in the 21st Century, whether a danger is imminent enough to justify an anticipatory war?  How ‘sure’ must a state’s leaders be about the intentions of others in order to justify a war like Iraq?

 

5.      Read (and then maybe re-read) Randall Jarrell’s poem excerpt at the beginning of chapter 7 – then describe what Walzer means by the ‘modernist’ view of war.  In other words, what do we mean by ‘not dying in vain’?

 

6.      Regarding WWII, what commitments did the policy of unconditional surrender involve?  Summarize what Walzer generally concludes about unconditional surrender.

 

7.      According to Walzer, why did the U.S. decide to cross the 38th parallel?  How did the U.S. (Acheson and Austin, for example) justify this military strategy?  What does Walzer conclude about the appropriateness of this strategy (ie: was it ‘right’ to do this)?

 

8.      Using the theory of ‘ends in war’ – that even enemy nations have the right to continued existence – would the United States have been correct to occupy Iraq (and then re-build it as America is trying to do now) in 1991 at the conclusion of the Gulf War?  Would it have been justifiable considering all that has happened since?

 

Chapter 8

 

1.   Which side should we err on in conducting a war – expediency to finish the job or cautious conduct regarding civilians?  Are there any limits to the possibility of military necessity?  Finally, how could the Moroccan treatment of Italian women at all be defensible (according to Vitoria)?  What does Walzer say?  What do you think?

 

2.      What is the difference (on page 135) between ‘acting kindly or humanitarian’ and ‘acting justly’?

 

 

Chapter 9

 

3.      What are ‘naked soldiers’?  Give one of his examples.  Is it illegal to kill one of these soldiers?  According to Walzer, should they be killed?  Do you agree with him?

 

4.      Which of the following, according to Walzer, could or should be attacked:

 

·        Woman working in a munitions factory

·        Man working in a food processing plant

 

Why?  What is the difference between the two?  Do you agree with the distinction?

 

     Chapter 11

 

5.      What’s a guerilla soldier?  How is one different from a terrorist?  If a suicide bomber attacks a military checkpoint (in Iraq, or in, say, the West Bank), should we consider them a guerilla fighter or a terrorist (according to Walzer and/or according to your view)?

 

Chapter 12

 

1.   What is the ‘crucial feature of terrorism’ and how does it ‘spread fear overtime’? 

 

2.      What is this ‘code of honor’ that revolutionary groups using ‘terrorism’ held in common?  What three examples of such groups does he give?  Describe them and how they each held this ‘code’?

 

3.      In general, how is the ‘political code’ different from the ‘war convention’?  How does it differ from contemporary terrorism?  Why is it so hard to compromise with contemporary terrorists?

 

4.      What do the ‘apologists’ say in defense of terrorism?  Should we try to understand the conditions which produce terrorism?  Can we do so without offering some apology for their methods?

 

Chapter 16

 

5.      Outline the implicit argument of supreme emergency.  What should we be skeptical of regarding this principle?  How can the overriding of the rights of innocent civilians ever be justified according to this principle?

 

6.      What was Dresden?  What does Walzer conclude about the British campaign to bomb German cities?  Was it justified according to ‘Supreme Emergency’?  Why can’t we justify bombings based solely on a cost/benefit analysis of loss of life?  What else, for Walzer, should we consider?

 

Rawls

 

7.      What are the three groups in an outlaw state, according to a Law of Peoples, that well-ordered peoples must distinguish?  What does he conclude, then, about Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden and Tokyo?  Explain principles iv and v (page 96), or, why should invading soldiers respect the rights of native civilians?  Finally, what does he conclude about supreme emergency in Germany and Japan during WWII?