Obama Just War Theory

The Libya, Obama and the Just War Theory
There is no doubt that philosophy can be applied to everything from politics, to government, to our personal relationships. In today’s world, however, it is difficult to simplify everything into theoretical whims of Cicero, Plato, and Kant. The Libya, Obama and the Just War Theory is a blog post written by a man under the alias “Doctor Cleveland.” Cleveland provides us with a prime example of an archaic theory being used to justify decisions made in a complex and highly political conflict. Cleveland argues that Obama’s decision to become involved in Libya can be rationalized through the “just war theory,” which states that war can be justified if it meets certain criteria. While he agrees that there
An obvious problem one would foresee with this requirement is the difficulty of quantifying evil. How does one know if the magnitude of evil is large enough that it must be contested? Cleveland clarifies that the just war must cause less harm than all other options presented. This idea is utilitarian, in a sense, because it calls for the greater good, even when it may cause some levels of harm. Cleveland provides a long list of examples that would be relevant from the perspective of a self-defending Libyan government. Only after does he finally admit that his argument regarding Obama’s decisions have little to do with self-defense, and much more to do with a third party’s involvement in a foreign government. Once finally addressing the relevant issue at hand, he briefly touches on Obama’s rationalization for war. He states that “…Qaddafi intends to massacre large numbers of civilians for resisting his rule,” and that this justifies rebellion and assistance to the rebellion. It is unfortunate that Cleveland spends so much time explaining the first condition of a just war, but then spends no time applying it to his argument about Libya. Even if one assumes that Qaddafi intends to massacre large numbers of civilians, one cannot assume that the only option is to intervene. Cleveland offers no evidence to make the reader believe that other alternatives have been considered. This is an inexcusable mistake, because his argument is based entirely on the relative violence that would result from intervention in Libya. There are a number of approaches that the United States could have taken to combat Qaddafi’s oppressive dictatorship, none of which were mentioned by Cleveland. For example, the United States could have imposed trade sanctions to create pressure, extended negotiations, or simply remained uninvolved. It is arguable that each of these options would