In the US, it is not at all unusual to meet people who are practicing Christians, even devout members of their church, who loathe the ideology and practices of the US regime, but think it is morally permissible, even mandatory, to use violence to spread "our values" to other countries. I know many anti-feminist Christians who hold it the duty of the US to use violence to impose "women's rights" on Moslem countries. The Church is responsible for at least part of this Orwellian mentality by its equivocal use of such terms as democracy and feminism, but the result of this has hardly been pacifism.

And I am a little bit puzzled by the suggestion that what we need are leaders like Martel, Charlemagne, Joan of Arc and Sobieski. These were all military leaders; assuming they were to re-appear, whose armies would they lead and against whom? Presumably their primary target would be the "Christian" US armed forces, the powerful spearhead of world revolution. But in truth our problems are spiritual, not military.

'Will's' inquiry re whether it is immoral to serve in an (allegedly) unjust war does not seem to me to be an 'excellent' one, as both you and TJF described it. There is much less absolute morality than people commonly think; most moral questions are context-dependent. Admittedly, I can't see how rape could ever be justified. But that might be it. Even killing a child could be justified, if he's shooting a gun at you, and you're trapped. Of course, murder by definition is wrong. But that doesn't solve anything, because one must differentiate between homicide and murder, and that can be difficult.

There are deep but basic errors is 'Will's' positions. Here is his core question:

"Isn’t an unjust war, by definition, a criminal enterprise? How does obedience sanctify the actions of of a citizen/subject who participates in a criminal enterprise?"

My annoyance with this question stems from its implicit conflation of those who start wars with those who fight them. He seems to imply that if a war is unjust, then ALL involved must be unjust. "Criminal enterprise" implies to me voluntary entry into an organization dedicated to immoral pursuits. But there is nothing inherently immoral about militaries per se, though they have often been put to evil ends. If a man embarks upon an honorable career in the US Army, that is obviously morally different from someone embarking upon a career in the Mafia. The former organization MAY be used evilly, but the latter is inherently evil. There is almost no excuse for joining the Mafia (I suppose one could be wrongly imprisoned, and feel the need for Mafia protection, if the possibility exists). But a man wishing to defend his country does not need a moral justification for doing so.

So what Will is really implying is that a soldier has a right (duty?) to pass moral judgment on the policies of his superiors. Then, if he judges some particular military campaign (Vietnam, Iraq) to be unjust, he must leave the military, or else he shall have been transformed, merely by doing his job, the job for which he signed up, has been trained and paid, perhaps swore an oath to perform, into a member of a criminal enterprise - even though his intention had been to sign up to defend his country. In other words, the soldier did not have criminal intent when he was inducted into the service, but by doing his job he becomes a criminal?

No. If there are criminals, that is, if the war was truly unjust, it is the leaders who must be called to account. The soldier is simply their tool. Unless he behaves in a criminal manner (ie commits ordinary crimes under cover of war), he cannot be held to account for his superiors' sins.

I'm going to think about this some more tonight. But I'm quite sure I'm correct in what I have argued, both here and earlier in the thread.

Though hardly a world-class scholar of Just War doctrine myself, I would say that Cato seems to have neglected a rather important aspect of it -- i.e., the principle of discrimination.

To kill the innocent as a means to one's end (in this case, survival) is always murder.

Naturally I would not jump on a high horse to condemn someone who failed such an abominable test, but it is important to call a spade a spade.

Moreover,

"Moreover, one cannot overlook the context; specifically, that if I were ordered to do the evil act, but did not do it and were executed, that would not prevent the act’s occurrence, as another could be expected to take my place."

strikes me as flawed reasoning, in that it takes for granted that we can somehow peer into the future and know exactly how things will turn out and what the consequences of our choices will be. As just one possible counterexample -- somebody, after all, will be the last victim to get murdered just prior to the cavalry showing up.

Of course, other types of ordinary crime, like theft and especially rape, or torture of POWs (unless for vital informational purposes), are not excused merely by hostilities, though "theft" must be distinguished from relieving the enemy of weapons, foodstuffs, medical supplies, etc. It would be stealing for a Christian soldier to take an enemy's wedding band, at least if it were for personal gain (if for the war effort, the situation becomes murkier). It would not be theft to take the enemy's woolen coat, even if the enemy were to freeze without it, provided the Christian or one of his men in turn would freeze without it. On the other hand, taking the enemy's coat, causing him to freeze, when it is not needed by one of the Christians, is immoral cruelty.

I don't see why these issues should be thought so difficult, at least in theory. Where they do become difficult nay impossible, however, is on the evidentiary side of the ledger. Was it really right of me to shoot that last soldier, or was he trying to surrender? Was it really necessary to bomb Hiroshima (Nagasaki was absolutely immoral, even if understandable, after the cruelties that the filthy Japs had inflicted upon many American and British POWs, not to mention the horrors they perpetrated upon civilians throughout Asia)? Only God will ever know with certainty the morality of those kinds of situations.

The example Fleming offers @17 of the German soldiers and Ukrainian peasants is an excellent one, though his conclusion that someone ordered to kill the innocent on pain of death is morally guilty of murder strikes me as wrong. I do not believe the Christian tradition to hold that a man must sacrifice his own life for that of another, although doing so would certainly be saintly. Moreover, one cannot overlook the context; specifically, that if I were ordered to do the evil act, but did not do it and were executed, that would not prevent the act's occurrence, as another could be expected to take my place. Murder involves initiation of an abomination. The German officers alluded to are simply following orders, and are therefore morally like automatons or tools.

Of course, if the punishment for disobedience were something other than certain execution, then very likely the Christian would have to refuse to obey. But this is all a long way from some contemporary creep thinking he could burn his draft card because "Vietnam [or Iraq] was immoral".

1. Do European governments have the moral right to require their domestic Muslims to return to their ancestral homelands? Incidentally, upon what would this moral right be based?

2. Assume the Muslims refuse to return home voluntarily, or were actually born in Europe. Do European governments have the moral right forcibly to repatriate them (ie physically place them on boats, planes, etc, bound for the traditional Muslim lands)?

3. Assume the Muslims not only refuse to leave, but pick up weapons to resist their deportation. May European soldiers shoot the resisters? May European civilians also shoot the resisters?

4. Suppose the broader domestic Muslim communities in Europe widely support the armed resisters, morally, but also physically (sheltering, feeding, bandaging them, etc). May European governments declare war on their Muslim communities, and begin indiscriminately shooting at ALL Muslims, bombing Muslim neighborhoods, etc?

5. Suppose European governments continue to be comprised of racial/religious/civilizational traitors, who actively seek to dispossess their own subject nations/peoples of their historic cultures, folkways and very nations, through the primary mechanism of imposing a Muslim demographic conquest upon their own peoples. At what point may the European peoples rebel against their dispossessor governments, and start assassinating political figures?

6. Finally, at what point can European Christians launch a "preventive war" against their state-imposed Muslim immigrant neighbors (recall young Russell Crowe in ROMPER STOMPER slapping a Vietnamese immigrant to Australia, while saying over and over,"This is not your country"), to foreclose the possibility of living under dhimmitude in the future?