Peacebuilding and Counterinsurgency: Alternatives to the Moral Dilemma of War

Abstract

In contrast to traditional Christian just war theory (as derived from the thought of Augustine and Aquinas), this chapter will argue that all war and all killing in war involve agents in an irreducible moral dilemma such that any course of action, even if justifiable in terms of the greater good, involves guilt and should involve remorse and remediation. To make this case, I will draw on Michael Walzer’s concepts of “dirty hands,” “supreme emergency,” and “double effect.” Neither Walzer nor military ethics regards killing combatants as a moral dilemma, but Walzer usefully clarifies how a morally justifiable action can still bring a measure of guilt and responsibility. In fact, Augustine and Aquinas also tacitly recognize the moral ambiguity of war. While moral dilemmas cannot always be avoided, moral responsibility in relation to moral dilemmas requires public acknowledgment, compensatory measures, and commitment to create better options. Parallels will be drawn between religious peacebuilding initiatives and the military policy of counterinsurgency as nonviolent alternatives to the moral dilemmas of war and killing. The fact that such alternatives are regarded as morally obligatory in both approaches reveals that even “justified” war is morally ambiguous in fact if not in principle.