It reflects the dominant position of those who consider themselves peace supporters. Absolute pacifists have always been a minority, even within peace movements. The majority of those who work for peace seek to avoid war but are willing to accept some limited use of force for self-defense or to uphold justice and protect the innocent. Some uses of military force are more objectionable than others. This is evident from the fact that certain wars, such as those in Vietnam and Iraq, arouse vociferous movements of protest, while other uses of force, such as the multinational operation in Bosnia, are broadly accepted, even by many peace supporters. As the United States prepared to take military action in Afghanistan following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, Scott Simon of National Public Radio wrote “Even Pacifists Must Support This War.”
Some peace advocates accepted the attack against Al Qaida as justified self-defense, but many cautioned against militarizing the struggle against terrorism. Because just war language is often abused by political leaders to justify military aggression there is concern that misuse of the framework can be a slippery slope toward the legitimation of indiscriminate violence. As Michael Walzer emphasized, just war reasoning is a challenge to political realism. The just war doctrine establishes a rigorous set of moral conditions that must be met before armed conflict can be considered. If thoroughly and honestly applied these criteria would rule out most of the armed conflicts that political leaders claim to be just and would make war a rare occurrence.
Pragmatic pacifism can be understood as a continuum of perspectives, beginning on one end with the rejection of military violence and extending across a range of options that allow for some limited use of force under specific conditions. The presumption is always against the use of force and in favor of settling differences without violence, but reality dictates that some uses of force may be necessary at times to assure justice and prevent the greater violence that often results when exploitation and aggression are unconstrained. Even strict pacifists acknowledge that at times soldiers can play a role in preventing the spread of violence.
I once asked a class of Mennonite students who described themselves as pacifist if they would support the continued deployment of NATO troops in Bosnia to keep the peace among the previously warring factions. All but one of the twenty students said yes. Pacifists may accept the use of force if it is constrained, narrowly targeted, and conducted by proper authority within the rule of law. Mennonite theologian John Howard Yoder differentiated between war and the use of police power; the latter is subject to legal and moral constraints and is ethically superior to war. Distinctions matter, and a vast difference exists between unilateral, unprovoked military aggression and multilateral peace operations to protect civilian populations. No one who considered herself pacifist would accept the former but a great many would accept the latter.
The just war position also contains a continuum of perspectives, extending from limited police action to all-out war, based on a set of moral criteria that can vary significantly in different settings. Views on whether a particular use of force is justified range from a restrictive interpretation that permits military action only under narrowly constrained circumstances, to more expansive claims that seek to justify large-scale military operations and even the unprovoked invasion of other countries. Analysts often differ on whether a particular use of force, such as the 1991 Gulf War, meets the classic moral criteria of a just war. Most ethicists within the tradition agree, however, that the just war framework is based on a presumption against the use of military force. All share Walzer’s insistence on addressing the moral reality of war. The use of military force is not merely an extension of politics. It is a moral act of supreme importance that must be judged according to the strictest ethical standards.
The continuum of pacifism can be combined with that of just war to form a continuous range of options extending from absolute nonviolence at the one end to the justification of war at the other. All the differing perspectives on war and peace thus can be considered in relation to one another. This is the approach employed by Ceadel in his classification of five major perspectives on peace and war. John Howard Yoder also combined the two traditions in a standard lecture I had the privilege of hearing on several occasions. Yoder argued that a systematic and rigorous application of just war principles – just cause, right authority, last resort, probability of success, proportionality, discrimination – would make war extremely rare. Philosopher John Rawls wrote that justice demands a form of “contingent pacifism.” The possibility of just war is conceded in principle, but the far greater likelihood is that war will be unjust, especially when waged by large and powerful states against weaker nations. Given the often predatory aims of state power the demands of justice may require resistance to war.
Pacifism and Nonviolence as a Form of Human Collective Life
