I found the article to which my previous post on Cavanaugh’s article refers, and this guy is some theological tool. For instance:
Just-war thinking, as Johnson reminded us, is not only about the justification of the resort to armed force or the ways in which that force is deployed. Just-war thinking also includes a serious moral analysis of the goal of peace, to which the use of armed force must be ordered.
The whole gist of this article seems to forget about “not only about the justification of the resort to armed force or the ways in which that force is deployed” once he mentions it to move on to what for him is the “superceding” element of “decision” about whether a war is just or not, which is “Just-war thinking also includes a serious moral analysis of the goal of peace, to which the use of armed force must be ordered.”
What utter hogwash and a blasphemous capitulation to “ends justifies the means” thinking. The just war tradition obviously gives the heavier weight to the MEANS, and that “civilian” casualties are “unacceptable”. Nowadays, this gets shoved aside on the name of “the way things are” and “how things must be done”.
Then Weigel seals the deal here:
The ideal expressed in the just war tradition . . . is an ideal in which the use of force serves . . . to create peace.
In other words, whatever the authoritative wisdom says is the “achievable means to peace” is given top billing in this neocon version of “just war”. It’s basically capitulating to “the decider”, whoever that may be in the halls of power and assumed to be the “common sense” of the day. It’s the mechanisms of empire, working to set itself up as the ipso facto “empty shrine” — the basis of a talk Cavanaugh gave a couple of years ago at The Ekklesia Project Gathering.