Just And Unjust Wars Summary

Throughout the course of the year, we’ve read many plays, novels, and articles that argued the various beliefs of many different philosophers about what it takes to be a just and righteous leader. But, just like any debate there’s always a contradiction, so they also explain the irrational and unjust qualities of a political leader as well. Possibly, the most important novel we read this school year is Just and Unjust Wars by Michael Walzer because it teaches us the laws and rights of war, along with explaining the traits and actions of a good political leader. For instance, a good political leader must obtain an equal and fair balance of morals that put no human in harm, unless it’s a dire situation. Also, I’m also going to use Walzer’s article

Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare to show the inequalities and wrongful actions of a bad political leader. Too help further explain the difference between a good and bad political leader, I’m going to use Achebe’s Things Fall Apart to explain the negative affects a bad political leader has on his society.
The two most important things a person must do throughout war is preserve their morals and the ability to follow the rules. In the beginning of his novel, Walzer emphasizes how war brings out the worst of us as leaders, as people, and as soldiers: “War strips away our civilized adornments and reveals our nakedness… And one urges silence on the law when one is engaged in activities that would otherwise be called unlawful” (Walzer 4). Basically, he’s describing the negative proponents that wars bring upon a society. For instance, when we lose our moral standards we’re losing all ability to make reasonable and just decision. Meaning, harmful and detrimental actions can be forced upon different societies. So, a good leader is one who can retain his moral judgment and ability to make fair choices. Next, we’re introduced to Walzer’s belief on utility and proportionality:
“It would be difficult to condemn soldiers [and leaders] for anything they did in the course of a battle or a war that they honestly believed, and had good reason to believe, was necessary, or important, or simply useful in determining the outcome” (Walzer 129).
According to Walzer, it’s substantially important to have a leader who believes he’s doing the correct thing because more times than not it leads to positive actions.

These positive intentions also help to unify a community by bringing everyone under one belief. This leads us into why Walzer wrote the book and that’s because he wanted to explain the laws and rules of fighting a war. He highlights throughout his novel that it’s extremely important for a good political leader to follow these rules because it keeps them in check making sure they’re not exceeding outside the boundaries, but it also offers some beneficiary bonus if you follow them. For example, if a leader follows everything correctly, they are then categorized into the sliding scale: “The more justice, the more right” (Walzer 229). Basically, the sliding scale is a judgment whether you are being a good leader or not, and if so. Then your given the privilege to violate more rules and laws to do what’s necessary whether that’s not being defeated or even winning at times. (Walzer 229). There are countless other examples that Walzer uses to express the difference between a good political leader and a bad one, but these seemed to be the most

important.
I would now like to translate over to Walzer’s article on Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare, and discuss how the advancement in technology and warfare makes us good and bad political leaders. First, he discloses the difference between terrorism and targeted killing:
“Untargeted killing, random killing, the bomb in the supermarket, the café, or the bus station: we call that terrorism… But someone who takes aim at a particular person, a political official, a military officer, is engaged in a different activity. He may be a just assassin” (Walzer article).
Looking at it through the lens of democracies, Walzer explains how this is an act of a bad political leader. The most crucial point is it being an unjust act because it puts many innocent civilians at harm’s way. Also, democracies are more suitable towards trials because it allows for an easier act of peace treaties and less chaos to break out (Walzer article). But, he then brings up contradictory a point, that a leader may use targeting killing when it involves an irrational and beyond dangerous human being: 
“It would be better to capture them and bring them to trial, but that is often not a reasonable option—the risks are too high; innocent bystanders would be killed in the attempt; the planning would take time, and the terrorist attacks are imminent or actual” (walzer article).
So, it’s not really an argument whether we’re good or bad political leaders for using this technique, but it’s knowing the difference when to use targeting killing. A good political leader makes just and rational choices when it comes to this type of warfare, while a bad one uses it irrationally. The next critique he offers is on drown warfare and whether the advance technology is really that good. Not only does Walzer say it’s bad but also explains how inhume it is: “The easiness should make us uneasy. This is a dangerously tempting technology. It makes our enemies more vulnerable than ever before, and we can get at them without any risk to our own soldiers” (Walzer article). He wants his viewers to understand that it takes away the humanity piece we feel when we take another person’s life. We’re supposed to feel sad, regretful, ashamed, along with many other emotions, but it takes that away. Making us almost robotic and inhumane. Yes, the beneficiary to it is extremely valuable as it allows our troops to stay safe from harm’s way, but is it how we want are fighting done for us? According to Walzer, using drones falls under the actions of an unjust political leader because it takes away the moral and ethical responsibilities. Walzer isn’t the only person who offers us insight about the leadership qualities of a good or bad political leader, Achebe also has his own beliefs.
In Achebe’s novel Things Fall Apart, he uses Okonkwo and the tribe to show the unjust actions of a political leader. The reader learns about Okonkwo’s personality early in the novel: “Okonkwo was not a cruel man. But his whole life was dominated by fear, the fear of failure and of weakness. It was the fear of himself” (Achebe Kindle edition 13). Fear is one of the most detrimental qualities in any leader because it provokes irrational harmful decision making, it doesn’t allow a person to think and understand reasonably. We can see this play out when he kills Ikemfuna under the law of the oracle. Another time we can see fear played out, is when Okonkwo beats his wife and the clan members only punish him through prayer: “You will bring to the shrine of Ani tomorrow one she-goat, one hen, a length of cloth and a hundred cowries” (Achebe Kindle edition 30). The clan members are only afraid of punishing him to hard because they rely so much on his crops. So, they decide not to punish him to hard unlike they would anyone else. This lack of discipline and fear proves the qualities of a bad political leader because your subjecting to who can do what. You’re creating a just or equal society where everyone shares the same rules. Meaning, order will soon fall and things will start turning into chaos.
These two readings relate a lot to my personal beliefs because they’ve helped further shape some of my ideas.

For example, Walzer explaining how leaders needs to preserve their moral beliefs throughout war is the most important one to because it keeps us humane. It keeps us from committing to unspeakable actions that we’ll regret later in life. Following that is one I truly disagree with and that’s his argument on intentions. I don’t believe people should be forgiven or looked pass upon if they did something horrible because they full heartedly had good intentions. Anyone can make the argument that they truly believed they were doing the right thing, and that is extremely dangerous. Too me, it provokes negative behavior or bad actions. So, a political leader should not be judged on whether their intentions were good or not. Next, leading we’re lead to his argument on the advancement of warfare, which I agree with completely because it shows the morals and reasonable responses of a good political leader. A good political leader won’t use target killing unless it’s absolutely necessary and we’re not putting people in danger. Now, drone warfare to me it very complicated subject because I see both sides of it. Yes, it can be extremely beneficiary by eliminating targets without risking the lives of anyone, but we are taking away emotional side of it. This emotional side to war is supposed to make us reflect deeply. So, I can’t really pinpoint exactly how I feel. Lastly, were

drawn to Achebe’s argument how the worst political leaders are run by fear, and I agree. People who make decisions based on being afraid generally make a choice that’s going to affect another human in a negative manor. So, fear to me is the most harmful trait one can have.
In this essay, we’ve covered three important readings Just and Unjust Wars, Targeted Killing and Drone Warfare, and Things Fall Apart. Each one discussed a different topic but they all evoked around the same theme. What makes a good political leader? In Walzer’s two readings, we learned about the conservancy of morals, the difference between just and unjust acts, and rationality of thinking. While Achebe, explained the negative qualities the rely within the term fear.