Recent military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have reminded Americans that war is a multidimensional phenomenon involving much more than tangible considerations such as technology, logistics, and capital. Matters of the human heart, the variety of communities that humans form, and the multiple ways these communities interact all exert profound influence on the ways in which Americans plan, execute, and evaluate warfare. Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust War (1989) is the preeminent American text on the ethics of modern warfare, particularly regarding just war theory. However, James M. Dubik ... More

Recent military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have reminded Americans that war is a multidimensional phenomenon involving much more than tangible considerations such as technology, logistics, and capital. Matters of the human heart, the variety of communities that humans form, and the multiple ways these communities interact all exert profound influence on the ways in which Americans plan, execute, and evaluate warfare. Michael Walzer’s Just and Unjust War (1989) is the preeminent American text on the ethics of modern warfare, particularly regarding just war theory. However, James M. Dubik believes that it is substantively flawed because Walzer limits his analysis to soldiers on the ground during combat and fails to hold senior political and military leaders accountable during all stages of warfare. In Just War Reconsidered, Dubik draws on years of research as well as his own experience as a soldier, commander, and teacher to fill the gap left by Walzer and other theorists. He combines moral philosophy, political philosophy, and strategic studies with historical and contemporary case studies to reveal the inaccuracies and moral bankruptcy that inform some of the literature on military ethics. He advocates that political and military leaders should be held accountable for planning and execution in addition to their decision whether to initiate military conflict. He offers five principles to explain and judge leadership: continuous dialogue, final decision authority, managerial competence, war legitimacy, and resignation.