Abstract
Michael L. Gross asks in this stimulating book how a relatively small fighting force, struggling toward the goal of political self-determination, might wage war ethically against a stronger, oppressive state.
Following an introduction, which includes an overview of Gross’s argument and of the cases he draws on throughout the text, the book is divided into four parts. The first part is further divided into two chapters, one devoted to an exploration of the just war theory’s jus ad bellum criteria of legitimate authority and just cause in the context of guerrilla warfare, and another largely to jus in bello criteria such as noncombatant immunity. Part II extends Gross’s jus in bello arguments, dealing in some depth with the weaponry used by guerillas, as well as questions about targeted assassination and the use of human shields. ‘Soft war’ is the subject of Part III of the text. Here Gross examines use of any non-kinetic weapons—for example, weapons that do not ‘explode or hurl projectiles’ (p. 151). Thus this section explores the ethics of attacking cyber networks and economic targets, as well as soft power tactics including diplomacy and even nonviolent resistance. The final section is a brief collection of concluding remarks.
Among Gross’s most compelling endeavors in the book is his attempt to show how guerrilla warriors deserve what he calls ‘a fighting chance’ in wars of liberation toward self-determination. Gross laments that ‘to no little extent, international law denies just guerillas the right to a fighting chance’ (p. 279). His text aims to persuade the international community to remedy this problem. In order to do so, Gross argues that just cause and legitimate authority can apply to guerrilla warfare. The case for guerrilla forces as legitimate authorities fighting for a just cause could be more robustly made if Gross were to pay greater attention to how these criteria have been understood historically by political philosophers and theologians. Nevertheless, Gross’s attention to these criteria in the context of insurgency is a strength of the text.
An additional strength is Gross’s sheer provocativeness. He has a knack for forcing his readers to think twice about their presumptions regarding the ethics of warfare, and how they might be applied to highly controversial methods such as terrorism, assassination, the use of human shields, conscription of guerrilla soldiers, and even the use of suicide bombers. Gross’s attention to these realities of modern guerrilla warfare is commendable, and it illustrates his determination to take seriously the claims of those who fight for liberation from stronger and militarily-superior state governments.
At the same time, in provoking his readers to think more intentionally and carefully about these methods in the context of insurgency, weaknesses in the argument reveal themselves. For example, while Gross focuses heavily on just cause and legitimate authority, he spends extraordinarily little time discussing the just war criterion of last resort. What might just insurgents do prior to taking up arms to insure that they have met this critical criterion? By subsuming all means of soft power, including diplomacy and nonviolent resistance, as well as more damaging cyber-attacks and economic sanctions under the ‘broader concept’ (p. 153) of soft war, Gross potentially erodes the nonviolent character of these tactics, and their power to stave off the last resort of armed conflict. Fundamentally, nonviolent tactics are not forms of war. Gross acknowledges as much in the first lines of chapter ten, noting that ‘many might expect’ to see a chapter on nonviolence at the beginning of the book and that ‘civil disobedience, demonstrations, and nonviolence are … the first resort that we demand of disaffected groups before they turn to armed force’ (p. 240).
The erosion of the traditional meaning of terms happens elsewhere in the text in a way that may be potentially problematic. For example, Gross uses the term ‘economic warfare’ to refer to what seem to be economic sanctions—not usually understood as warfare per se. Another example involves the term ‘targeted killing’, which normally refers to the direct and intentional assassination of a political or military target. Gross suggests, however, that the United States engaged in ‘targeted killing’ of Osama bin Laden, while failing to note that US forces purportedly were attempting to arrest bin Laden, who was, perhaps predictably, killed in the process. The killing of bin Laden might better be described as a botched arrest than an assassination. This distinction between targeted killing and killing in the course of attempted capture is critically important for ethical analysis. The US does indeed target individuals on a ‘kill list’, and has assassinated dozens of people in nations with which it is not actively at war. The ethical ramifications of targeted killing are different from those of killing in the course of attempted capture, and therefore the meaning of the former ought to be carefully protected rather than eroded.
Finally, from the perspective of Christian ethics in particular, a critique might be made of Gross’s regular appeals to the effectiveness of particular strategies and tactics, whether the use of voluntary human shields, hostage taking or suicide bombing. For Gross, the ethics of these tactics flow in large part from their effectiveness in achieving their military aims and the degree to which they flow from the right to a fighting chance. While from the perspective of political science and law, such analysis is undoubtedly warranted, at times it leads Gross to suggest that the ends justify the means in ways that may disturb many Christian ethicists who view consequentialism as morally problematic.
Since Gross neither states nor appeals to any particular philosophical or theological framework, Christian ethicists may struggle to understand the foundations of his ethical claims. That said, Gross’s primary field is political science, and those claims are made largely on the basis of international and humanitarian law. In this context, Gross has written a provocative text that is well worth reading and marks a serious contribution to discussions about contemporary warfare, especially insurgencies. I recommend it for scholars craving clear and insightful analysis of the highly complex questions raised by contemporary warfare, and for use with graduate students.