Rating: 
Summary: A good start with several flaws
Review: This is a good start. In its sheer breadth of knowledge it covers a vast array of questions from pre-emptic strikes to the status of civilians and the question of responsibility. WOnderful discussions on all aspects fo waging war from blockades, to the question of appeasement. A very fascinating read with several minor flaws.
THe first major flaw is the preoccupation of this book with western conflicts. Major wars, with millions of dead, have been waged in this century alone that did not involve the west, for instance the Iran-Iraq war. Little analysis in this study is given to the question of a non-western perespective on war and what it means for western nations confronting non-western ones, who live by completely different rules.
THe second major flaw is the all to often obsession with treating terrorism without mentioning Islam. In the chapter on terrorism and guerilla war their is a disproportionate focus on the IRA and the 'Stern Gang' which would make one assume that these organizations were disproportionatly good examples of terrorism. The opposite is true. Not one sentence, in fact not one word in this study deals with Islamic terrorism, which just happens to be the main confict in the world today. THe question of 'just wars' was obviously aimed at the recent Iraq war, so why not deal with the question of Sept 11? FLaws such as this point to an overreaching political correctness which takes away from this volumnes very heroic attempt to understand modern war.
Seth J. Frantzman
Rating: 
Summary: superb, even for the non-specialist
Review: This is a great book. Perhaps those with more of a political background would take away something different, but I found it to be a thoughtful look at the (moral) causes of wars and the decisions that come into play. There's always a line in the sand, but Walzer looks at when it is more acceptable to cross it and how those decisions play out. And it's also an interesting book if you are interested in the history of war but get saturated easily. I didn't find this dry.
Rating:
Summary: A classic in its field
Review: This is an erudite work examining the philosophical subtelties and ethical issues that war evokes. Any one seriously interested in war, applied ethics, political philosophy, and international relations should be familiar with the arguments Walzer uses. The historical examples are standard dilemmas and problems which are useful in class discussions in philosophy as well as history. The only critique I have of the book (which I often use for my own philosophical writing) is that Walzer's ethical examination of war ends with nuclear war--in this I think he is wrong, we should not stop our analysis even with the nightmare scenario of a holocaust, for that is to give the moral hand over to those who would use nuclear arms. The book is challenging and insightful and deserves further reprints.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book on Just War Theory
Review: Walzer's book is a superb introduction to Just War. It addresses both justice of war and justice in war. Most importantly, it is philosophical and deep while at the same time always clear and well illustrated with concrete examples and historical cases. It really could not be better written. Every chapter is concise, fascinating and provides an excellent overview/introduction to its respected subject. The main framework for Justice of War is the legalist paradigm/domestic analogy. In society, one is allowed to defend oneself if attacked. Analagously, a country can fight a war in self defense. Similarly, if evidence is uncovered that someone is plotting a murder or robbery, domestic authorities don't have to wait until he actually commits the crime to intervene. When the evidence accumulates to a certain level, beyond reasonable doubt say, they can intervene and pre-empt him. Same thing applies on the international scale: pre-emption is legitimate. Walzer illustrates this with the Six Day War of 1967, a preemptive war initiated by Israel. Of course, the current War on Iraq is supposed to be preemptive as well. But, as Walzer shows, it is in fact preventive. Prevention is when you intervene against a known bad person or country without specific evidence of an imminent attack because one believes that this person or country would harm one if it could and it can't be allowed to gain more power, because then it will attack, even though it won't now. Or roughly that ;) Walzer claims that preventive wars sometimes lead to unnecesary wars, to wars against countries that never would have attacked. Therefore, they are unjustified; we should wait until we have sufficient evidence for plans of a definite attack at some point in the near future. I find if persausive. The stuff on justice in war is just as good. Non-combatants should be immune since they pose no threat. But, of course, who counts as a non-combatant? What about workers in a munitions factory? What about factories pumping out clothes and supplies that the military depends on? Other rules of conduct in war such as unnecessary suffering, double effect, proportionality and torture are discussed. So is the issue of who is responsible for war: just the political leaders? Citizens, too? Very interesting stuff. I don't completely agree with Walzer, on things like Humanitarian Intervention and some other things, but this is nevertheless a great book. Read this and "Anarchy, State and Utopia" and you'll have a great foundation for a well reasoned political philosophy. Greg Feirman (gfire77@yahoo.com)
Rating:
Summary: Great Book on Just War Theory
Review: Walzer's book is a superb introduction to Just War. It addresses both justice of war and justice in war. Most importantly, it is philosophical and deep while at the same time always clear and well illustrated with concrete examples and historical cases. It really could not be better written. Every chapter is concise, fascinating and provides an excellent overview/introduction to its respected subject. The main framework for Justice of War is the legalist paradigm/domestic analogy. In society, one is allowed to defend oneself if attacked. Analagously, a country can fight a war in self defense. Similarly, if evidence is uncovered that someone is plotting a murder or robbery, domestic authorities don't have to wait until he actually commits the crime to intervene. When the evidence accumulates to a certain level, beyond reasonable doubt say, they can intervene and pre-empt him. Same thing applies on the international scale: pre-emption is legitimate. Walzer illustrates this with the Six Day War of 1967, a preemptive war initiated by Israel. Of course, the current War on Iraq is supposed to be preemptive as well. But, as Walzer shows, it is in fact preventive. Prevention is when you intervene against a known bad person or country without specific evidence of an imminent attack because one believes that this person or country would harm one if it could and it can't be allowed to gain more power, because then it will attack, even though it won't now. Or roughly that ;) Walzer claims that preventive wars sometimes lead to unnecesary wars, to wars against countries that never would have attacked. Therefore, they are unjustified; we should wait until we have sufficient evidence for plans of a definite attack at some point in the near future. I find if persausive. The stuff on justice in war is just as good. Non-combatants should be immune since they pose no threat. But, of course, who counts as a non-combatant? What about workers in a munitions factory? What about factories pumping out clothes and supplies that the military depends on? Other rules of conduct in war such as unnecessary suffering, double effect, proportionality and torture are discussed. So is the issue of who is responsible for war: just the political leaders? Citizens, too? Very interesting stuff. I don't completely agree with Walzer, on things like Humanitarian Intervention and some other things, but this is nevertheless a great book. Read this and "Anarchy, State and Utopia" and you'll have a great foundation for a well reasoned political philosophy. Greg Feirman (gfire77@yahoo.com)
| 
