The Order of War

I assume the definitions of ‘power’ and ‘authority’ here.

Just war is, in a sense, power applied to bring social order out of social disorder. War is understood to involve at least two contrary powers. In order for war to be possible, there must be an order to which both powers actually belong.

An analogy to war is competitive sports, in which two opposing teams compete against each other. Each team tries to accomplish two goals at once; to score points against its opponent and to prevent its opponent from scoring points against itself. There are intrinsic and extrinsic common goods proper to each team: Individual athletes must work well together as a team, and they all share in their team’s victories. There are, however, common goods proper to the sport in general; goods in which all teams share even as they compete against each other.

With respect to the intrinsic common goods of the sport, if there were no rules of play, then there would be no game; and, if it were not assumed that both teams would honor the rules equally, then competition would not be possible. As for the extrinsic goods of the game (the goods for which those who compete), were there none to be enjoyed, there would be no purpose for playing.

War is similar in the sense that there is an extrinsic common good that is supposedly exclusive to one party in the conflict: viz., the terms of victory and the driving motives for declaring war. However, if there were no fundamental order that was shared by all opposing forces, there would be no war: It would at most look like war, but would more appropriately be called suppression or interdiction if done well; a riot or massacre if not.

So, what is the order that enables man to wage war? Primarily, man desires to live and to live well. War is waged on this assumption; that death and needless suffering is to be avoided. However, peoples wage war by means of those who actively risk death and suffering on their behalf: The essence of a warrior is to undergo such risk for the sake of victory.

The relation between the warrior and the authority which empowers him to wage war implies the common nature of victory: Even fallen warriors can share victory. However, the good to which the warrior consecrates himself is greater than the admittedly thin consolation of posthumous victory and honor. If it were not the case that the warrior’s risk is itself a testament to the greatness of his cause, a good that encompasses his whole community, then military service should have no honor attached to it. In other words, if individual life and prosperity is the greatest good to which a man can aspire; if the commonweal is nothing greater than the totality of individual goods; or if the warrior’s moral calculus simply means gambling his life for a greater number of potential beneficiaries, then the warrior is reckless by nature, because such an outcome is far from certain. Rather, it is more likely that not only the warrior suffer, but the whole nation.

The nature of war includes sacrifice for a higher good, viz. the peace and order of the nations involved.

Peace

The common idea of peace is a negative one: Peace is not war. Thomas Hobbes, one of the fathers of liberalism, is partly to blame for this impoverished view. In Leviathan, he writes, “the nature of war, consisteth not in actual fighting; but in the known disposition thereto, during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is Peace.” Hobbes argues that peace is simply the absence of war, and war is the natural state of man’s relation to man. For Hobbes, therefore, peace is not a natural inclination, but an imposition. But evidence against this view is everywhere: The best and most humane human beings desire peace, not conflict. And to anyone actually acquainted with war, the idea that peace is enforced because war comes naturally must seem a bit funny.

Hobbes’ argument about the nature of peace and war is a new one. Saint Augustine, who was well educated and heavily influenced by Plato, Cicero, and the Stoics, maintains that all things strive for peace. In City of God, he clearly explains what he means by ‘peace’; a “harmony of congruous elements” and “the tranquility of order.” Augustine always speaks of peace with respect to order: The peace of the body is ordered proportion, the peace of the irrational soul is the order of appetites, the peace of the human soul is the order of intellect and will, etc. Peace with respect to human association is, as Augustine says, “the ordered agreement of mind with mind.” This peace is what characterizes the peace hoped for in the “earthly city” (human society). Still more noble than this peace is the peace of the Heavenly City, “a perfectly ordered and perfectly harmonious fellowship in the enjoyment of God, and a mutual fellowship in God.”

Peace, therefore, is an attribute of perfected nature. Because man has a rational nature which inclines him to associate with other men, the perfection of human association must involve an accordance of reason. It is contrary to man’s nature to place the goods of the body above spiritual goods, hence a man who does so is disordered and is not at peace. Likewise, it is contrary to man’s nature to love himself over the commonweal, hence one who sacrifices the common good for the sake of personal gain destroys the peace he enjoys with other men.

Of course, the earthly city is marred by a variety of evils that corrupt the natural order by which man attains peace. The earthly city (along with its rulers and laws) is not evil by nature, because nothing is naturally evil. But because of the effects of sin, it is perennially disordered. We can enjoy true peace only in the Heavenly City, whose order is the Love of God.

The greatest sign of the earthly city’s inability to attain true and lasting peace is the state of human justice. Justice, according to Augustine, is the virtue which sets man in relation to the city as a citizen. It is the virtue by which man participates in society for the sake of the common good. In other words, peace is realized through justice. But justice is practically impossible due to the effects of original sin. Man is damaged, born into a state of disorder. He cannot attain justice without grace. Therefore, the only recourse one has for attaining true peace is to God: That is, only by receiving grace as a citizen of the Heavenly City can one be a true citizen at all.

Saint Augustine acknowledges the goodness of man’s nature, and by extension the goodness of political association. But he adamantly opposes the notion that the earthly city can be perfected in practice; for man is corrupt and in dire need of God’s grace. Yet, even in his low estimation of the merits of human politics, Augustine holds that the earthly city can help its citizens attain true peace by helping them to participate in the Heavenly City. And when citizens have true peace, the earthly city itself can benefit from the grace merited by that participation.

Peace is a positive good that is shared between persons. It requires active participation by those who share it. It is the natural state of relations between human beings; it is integral to human nature. We crave it from the depths of our being. Because peace flows from human nature, we must put our natural capacities -- our minds and our hearts -- to work in it. Peace, then, is not synonymous with truce. It involves cooperation and commitment to a mutually held understanding of the true and the good. Hence, the most challenging aspect of peace: In order to share peace, we must share the truth.

It is no surprise then that a misunderstanding of peace would follow a denial of our ability to share the truth. And this was exactly the motivation behind Hobbes’ thesis. He was well aware of the terrors of the Religious Wars, which spread a despair for peace throughout Europe.

But Hobbes did not offer a new and effective way to achieve peace amidst a growing divergence of opinion. Rather, what he and his legacy embraced was a method of waging war more efficiently. As all the great military strategists have taught, a skilled general will overwhelm, deceive, divide, and intimidate his enemy. He controls the terms of engagement. He knows all. But most importantly, a general has mastered war when he can conquer his enemy without shedding blood. The ruler of the state, in Hobbes’ vision, is not concerned with peace at all, but with waging war on his own citizens.

Let us once more revisit Hobbes’ thesis: Peace is the absence of conflict, and conflict is only avoided by the threat of an all-powerful state with a monopoly on violence. But intimidation and threats are the marks of a power at war. So, if peace is simply the absence of war, is there such a thing as peace? The answer is, “no.”

In short, the Hobbesian idea of peace -- i.e. the modern, liberal idea of peace -- is indistinguishable from war.