The Justification of Contemporary Strategy: A Double-Edged Sword of Peace and War

Throughout history, the conclusion of a war often marks the beginning of a more complex and challenging endeavor—winning the peace. This process involves not only the physical reconstruction of war-torn territories but also the psychological and social reconciliation of divided communities. Dwight D. Eisenhower was a renowned proponent of this dual approach, emphasizing the importance of preparing for peace even during wartime. His vision of winning the peace demonstrates a strategic foresight that is as crucial today as it was during the Second World War.

The Goal of War: Achieving Peace or Less Perverse Terms?

Any strategic plan for war must include a blueprint for peace. The ultimate objective should be to achieve a peace that either surpasses the aspirations of one's own nation or at least minimizes the harm imposed by the enemy. It is in this pursuit of peace that contemporary strategy can be seen as equally important as the strategy of waging war.

The Foresight of Dwight D. Eisenhower: Setting the Stage for Peace

During the tumultuous times of the North African and post-Normandy campaigns, Eisenhower's strategic mind was already focused on the future. His ability to envision the post-war world enabled him to conduct the overall campaign with a broader perspective, laying the groundwork for the peace that would follow. Eisenhower's legacy demonstrates that a sound strategy for peace is a critical component of any comprehensive military strategy.

Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace

Just war theory traditionally focuses on the justifications for going to war and the conduct of war itself (jus in bello). However, the ethical considerations that follow a war (jus post bellum) have often been neglected in this framework. The principles of just peace, which emphasize the protection and promotion of human rights, offer a more comprehensive approach to evaluating the legitimacy of a post-war situation.

The Dual Nature of Contemporary Strategy

The contemporary strategy of peace and war is inextricably linked. Without a clear and realistic strategy for peace, the outcome of war can lead to prolonged instability and suffering. Traditional just war theory, while valuable, may not be sufficient to address the complexities of post-war reconciliation and justice. The principles of human rights provide a more robust framework for ensuring that the peace following a conflict is just and sustainable.

Conclusion: Winning the Peace Through Strategic Vision

Contemporary strategy must extend beyond the intricacies of war to embrace the equally challenging and essential task of winning the peace. This dual focus requires a holistic and foresighted approach, mirroring the visionary leadership of Eisenhower. By integrating the principles of just peace with those of just war, we can ensure that our strategies promote not only military victory but also a lasting and just peace for all involved.

References

Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace — What happens following a war is important to the moral judgments we make concerning warfare just as the intentions going in and the means used are. There has however been inadequate attention paid to considerations of jus post bellum in the just war tradition. This essay seeks to contribute to recent efforts to develop jus post bellum principles by first noting some of the ways that jus ad bellum and jus in bello considerations serve to constrain what can legitimately be done after war. We argue however that the constraints grounded in traditional just war theory do not offer sufficient guidance for judging postwar behavior and that principles grounded in the concept of human rights are needed to complete our understanding of what constitutes a just war. A just peace exists when the human rights of those involved in the war on both sides are more secure than they were before the war.” “Just War Theory and the Principles of Just Peace” on JSTOR