Disproportionate Proportionality - ???

In his weekly piece on language in the August 13, 2006, edition of The New York Times Magazine, William Safire comments on the ongoing situation involving Israel and Lebanon and specifically the fighting between the Israeli forces and the forces of Hezbollah. He writes, "This attack [Hezbollah's], widely considered 'unprovoked,' provoked a fierce military reaction from Israel. The ensuing counterattack - aerial and artillery bombardment of suspected terrorist positions, missile launching sites as well as Lebanese sea and air supply lines and power stations - not only infuriated the Arab 'street' but also raised ethical and diplomatic questions" (20). The questions center around a word and that word is proportional.

In an earlier article in The Washington Post, Eugene Robinson had called Israel's response "disproportionate." The Post adjoined Robinson's article with one by Richard Cohen in which he suggested "proportionality is madness..." for Israel.

I found Safire's article interesting and helpful for understanding current discussions around the topic of proportionality in the conduct of war. The element missing from his article, however, was the placement in the larger context of why the discussion of proportionality matters. In other words, why does proportionality matter as an element in the conduct of war?

The answer to that question is that proportionality is an element of the Just War Tradition. It is a criterion of JUS AD BELLUM (about when to go to war) and of JUS IN BELLO (how war is conducted). There are 6 criteria in the Just War Tradition that need to be satisfied before going to war. These criteria are: 1) Just Cause - war is for the defense of innocents against unjust attack and/or the defense of human rights, 2) Legitimate Authority - individuals cannot declare war and it must be authorized by duly acknowledged government, 3) Right Intent - war is conducted to reestablish a just peace, which rules out vengeance, revenge, and hatred as reasons for war, 4) Probability of Success - there must be a reasonable hope of achieving these aims and winning, 5) Last Resort - all nonviolent means must be exhausted first, 6) Proportionality - the evils associated with going to war must not outweigh the evils already present and that we are attempting to prevent. Once hostilities have begun, there are 2 criteria for the means of conducting war: 1) Proportionality - use only the amount of force necessary and not excessive force, don't use a tank against someone attacking with a knife,
2) Discrimination - do not directly or intentionally target civilians, avoid collateral damage, target, directly and intentionally, only combatants and perpetrators.

The Just War Tradition within Christianity is not a universal precept but proponents of this position throughout history include: Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, and the mainline denominations in the United States. The tradition has a presumption against violence, harm, and war, but certain injustices require the use of force. The presumption against force, however, continues to impact the use of force as we see in the criteria above.

In the last decade, I can recall numerous times that there have been partial references to the Just War Tradition such as Safire's comments. I don't know if there is a presumption that everyone knows the criteria and so can locate the discussion of one criterion in relation to the others or if it is something else. It seems to me though that the Just War Tradition is not being discussed as a whole nor is it being taught widely and the circumstances leading to this situation feel as if they are leading us to a place where we are not able to reflect upon conflict or war with any ethical framework other than the one Richard Cohen advocates, "you slap me, I will punch out your lights." Look out Rambo, here we come...