I have been away on my Grand Canyon hike, so I don't know if there has been a discussion of Jus ad bellum or not. Jus ad bellum sets forth the principles of "Just War."
It bothers me that all of the discussion I have heard on the tv relates to "legality" or "politics." I have not heard one commentator address whether or not the bombing of Lybia is "just."
At this point, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion, but it concerns me that no one seems to be asking the right questions. Is the U.S. justified in engaging in a war?
The well established principles of a "just war" are:
Probability of success.
Proportionality of projected results.
My biggest concern is "Comparitive justice." The U.S. seems to have sided with a group of rebels that we know nothing about. We know we don't like the current government of Lybia, but are we confident that the rebels are clearly better? Some reports suggest that they may be even worse.
I also have a concern about "probability of success." There don't seem to be clearly defined goals, so how can we be confident of success? It seems to me that we are engaging in more "hope and change." We are rocketing and bombing another country in hopes that things will turn out better. Engaging a "just war" requires more than that.