Rating: 
Summary: Still relevant today (at 27 years old)
Review: After reading the Oct 2004 review of Seth J. Frantzman, I feel the need to answer his question of why Walzer does not deal with the question of Sept 11. The simple answer is that the book was first published in 1977. It is true that it is now in its third edition, but even the newest edition is 2000 and it is simply a reprint of the old edition with a new preface added. Granted, the reviewer is correct that Walzer focuses on Western conflicts (though again, the Iran-Iraq conflict also hadn't started yet when Walzer was writing) but I would have to say "Go with what you know." Walzer does a good job of setting the context for the situations that he does discuss.
In fact, the reviewer's comment that "THe question of 'just wars' was obviously aimed at the recent Iraq war" just makes Walzer's case for him. The fact that his text is still clearly relevant today makes his historical points that much more powerful. In our philosophy department there has been a major resurgence in teaching Walzer in the last 3 years for just this reason.
Even though Walzer's opinions on the current US-Iraqi war can be fairly clearly determined from "Just and Unjust Wars", if you want a more explicit version of what he would say, you should pick up "Arguing About War" which is Walzer's 2004 book of recent essays. He discusses the Iraq war explicitly, although books published in May are already a bit dated. Walzer's philosophical arguments are timeless though and need to be thought about and discussed.
I would highly recommend the book and recommend that the reader keep current conflicts in mind while reading the historical episodes of other conflicts to help put Walzer's arguments in perspective.
Rating: 
Summary: excellent supplemental material
Review: As a high school AP teacher, I use excerpts from this book inmy European History class. ... My HIGH SCHOOL students both understandand love Walzer's analysis which they find very topical. His discussion on humanitarian intervention and on the ethical dilemma involved in the bombing of Dresden are of particular note. This is not your typical war book but asks that you think and consider war's ethical dimensions.
Rating:
Summary: Lots of headache
Review: Currently a grad. student at Columbia and this is one of my texts and by far my second favorite of the semester.Before explaining why, I want to counter the comment below about Walzer being arrogant. That is patently ridiculous and shows the reader to be short sighted and probably did not analyze the book correctly. How can Walzer be arrogant when he is merely dissecting what every person "feels" and put these "feelings" into coherent pattern of thoughts so that we can use them to analyze an inherently inhumane subject - war? We should be glad that someone attempts to articulate this difficult realm of our thinking into words that are both manageable, make sense, and leaves plenty of room for SELF-REFLECTION. That's the goal of the book. Is not to impose any ideas on the reader but to open your mind to this vastly difficult subject and enable you the reader to have a grasp and possibly control over your own feelings and to justify your actions through these feelings. In conclusion, the book is a great balance among theories, historical examples, and personal conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: One word: arrogant
Review: I just don't get this book. Who is Walzer to tell us what is right and wrong? I think this author goes too far in voicing his opinion, often placing his views as being right. He even goes as far was backing his "opinions" with real events! I think authors like Walzer are a real danger in our society.
Rating:
Summary: simply a classic
Review: I read a large portion of this book for a course. For the reader from Washington, DC who only gave this book a one star rating, I would only quote what he/she wrote in his/her comment: "I just don't get this book". That pretty much reflect why that particular reader doesn't like the book. First, Walzer is not a "rightist" as some would suggest. He simply accepts the possibility of war. In proposing a link between linkage and war, Walzer simply wants to set some limits as to how far a war can escalate. This is a contribution to the study of war, not an advocacy of war. Second, Walzer does an exceptional job in using historical examples to illustrate his points. I concede that his examples are based on his interpretations alone and his points are definitely his to make. However, never forget that this book is categorized as "philosophy/political science". Moreover, those who do not make their own interpretations miss the point of reading a book such as this. Finally, perhaps the biggest point Walzer makes is this: War/conflict is a human creation; its characteristics reflect a wide range of practices that are based on human decisions; and in searching within how humans think, we can see why we haven't killed ourselves yet. And for that, there's still hope for peace.
Rating:
Summary: simply a classic
Review: I read a large portion of this book for a course. For the reader from Washington, DC who only gave this book a one star rating, I would only quote what he/she wrote in his/her comment: "I just don't get this book". That pretty much reflect why that particular reader doesn't like the book. First, Walzer is not a "rightist" as some would suggest. He simply accepts the possibility of war. In proposing a link between linkage and war, Walzer simply wants to set some limits as to how far a war can escalate. This is a contribution to the study of war, not an advocacy of war. Second, Walzer does an exceptional job in using historical examples to illustrate his points. I concede that his examples are based on his interpretations alone and his points are definitely his to make. However, never forget that this book is categorized as "philosophy/political science". Moreover, those who do not make their own interpretations miss the point of reading a book such as this. Finally, perhaps the biggest point Walzer makes is this: War/conflict is a human creation; its characteristics reflect a wide range of practices that are based on human decisions; and in searching within how humans think, we can see why we haven't killed ourselves yet. And for that, there's still hope for peace.
Rating: 
Summary: Only if it's your bag
Review: I read this book for a class, and it is by far the dryest material I have ever read. It took me multiple attempts to stay awake through, let alone understand, each and every chapter. If this is your area of interest, then yes, Walzer has some bright insight and knows his stuff. But if you're not a pacifist/poli-sci/conflict resolution-type person, by all means don't waste your time. Professors: please think twice before throwing this at your students.
Rating:
Summary: Morality of Warfare
Review: Michael Walzer's book is an in-depth look at the morality of war. It is not an easy read especially for the laymen. It helps if the reader has a good grounding in philosophy and understands the idea of "moral relativism". His book makes an in depth study of many facets of what takes place in warfare. The chapter that I found most interesting because it is in the news so much was on pre-emptive warfare. Walzer does believe that countries have the right to go to war pre-emotively but he does set the bar quite high. He believes a country must really be under eminent attack before it acts pre-emotively. He did believe that Israel acted justly in its pre-emptive attack against the Arabs in the 1967 war. He also defines terrorism as a criminal act and not a justifiable act of war. He makes a clear distinction between terrorism and guerilla warfare, deeming guerilla warfare a moral method of warfare. I recommend this book for military, political professionals and for philosophers.
Rating:
Summary: Morality of Warfare
Review: Michael Walzer's book is an in-depth look at the morality of war. It is not an easy read especially for the laymen. It helps if the reader has a good grounding in philosophy and understands the idea of "moral relativism". His book makes an in depth study of many facets of what takes place in warfare. The chapter that I found most interesting because it is in the news so much was on pre-emptive warfare. Walzer does believe that countries have the right to go to war pre-emotively but he does set the bar quite high. He believes a country must really be under eminent attack before it acts pre-emotively. He did believe that Israel acted justly in its pre-emptive attack against the Arabs in the 1967 war. He also defines terrorism as a criminal act and not a justifiable act of war. He makes a clear distinction between terrorism and guerilla warfare, deeming guerilla warfare a moral method of warfare. I recommend this book for military, political professionals and for philosophers.
Rating:
Summary: Modern classic of just war theory
Review: No other book has created so much discussion about just war theory than this. It is really a modern classic. Book deals with two essential just war theory questions: 1) when it is morally permissible to go to war and 2) what it is morally permissible to do in war. Walzer draws many historical examples and his theory can be summarized:1) non-intervention is primary principle because nations right to self-determination must be respected. 2)Interventio to support states such right is permissible on three circumstances: a) when nation wants to make seccion out of original state and wants to create own state b) when intervention has already done and idea of new intervention is to counter original intervention effects. c)humanitarian interventio when severe and large human right violation have occured in state. Walzer's view is communitarinist: community is vital to human beings. Without community there can not be human rights. Book is easily readable and has very little or nothing philosophical jargon. I can recomment warmly this book to anyone who is interested in moral question of war.
| 
