<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful and helpful
Review: I have read several books in the last week on Just War theory, and this was the best by far. Temes seeks to employ an evolutionary understanding of the Just War Theory to explain where it came from and where it stands today. Then, Temes offers his ethical insights on Just War criteria, adding his own fingerprint to the philosophy. Finally, Temes uses these criteria and applies them to the current Iraqi War to see if it meets the requirement of a Just War. In this regard, the book is timely in its publication. Although his historical analysis is somewhat lacking and oversimplistic, Temes conclusions are enlightening and useful. Anybody interested in the subject should reference this book!
Rating: 
Summary: Well-informed, well-written, but suggestions irrelevant.
Review: Mr. Temes explores the history of the idea that wars may sometimes be necessary and even just, and then tries to apply those ideas to the world today, from a humanistic/liberal American perspective.The enjoyable part of the book is a great romp through historical trends in the three major Middle Eastern religions (Christianity, Islam, Judaism). He outlines secular & fundamentalist thinking, and extremist & moderate actions, in all three traditions. Temes really displays erudition here, with bits on Kemal Ataturk, the Crusades, the life of Saladin, and many other philosophers and administrators that I know little about. Of the many small historical details, I appreciated the discussion of Mawdudi, the mid-20th-century islamic fundamentalist thinker/writer from Hyderabad (India), who has been far too influential for the good of humanity. ... Temes discusses the question of whether the religious texts themselves endorse violence. This is a discussion that deserves to be far better known -- he elaborates on how you can read practically anything you want from the Old Testament, or the Quran. Temes clearly hears arguments from both sides, unlike the many American authors telling us how their empire is always just. It is certainly true that the WTC janitor who died in the September 11 attacks had never directly harmed a Chilean, Afghan, or Saudi. But it is equally true and relevant that the Palestinian child, blown to bits by an Israeli missile fired from an U.S.-funded helicopter, had never harmed an American. While his knowledge is impressive and his history is fun, Temes fails to inspire with his recommendations for today's world powers. He is right when he says that, one should look primarily to the future and not to the past --- just because the West committed crimes in the past shouldn't stop them from doing the right thing now. But this bypasses the real point. The recognition that the West committed crimes in the past should encourage them to stop continuing the imperial-colonial traditions, NOW. To ensure that their corporations and institutions don't do the same or worse things, now. If the West does not have the will to curb its energy corporations, its usurious banks, its weapons-makers, than the world will continue to be an unfair unequal place, and wars will continue to be necessary. Seeking to make wars as humane as possible, while refusing to remove its root cause (economic exploitation), seems to me to be a futile and irrelevant exercise.
Rating: 
Summary: Admirable survey. Light on direction
Review: No philosopher me, I was interested in exploring the evolution of Just War thinking in a post 9-11 world. Temes's digestion and presentation of the development of Just War thinking--and how Christian, Jewish, Moslem cultures contributed to or appear in reflection of this philosophy--is good. Easy to follow and easy to interlace the attitudes of the Big 3 religions. What's lacking however is a true update of the philosophy into the 21st century. It is merely a reaffirmation of the right of the individual, a core premise of the modern Just War philosophy. The timing of publication also lessens Temes's conclusion. It went to press just as the ground war in Iraq was starting in 2003, and although Temes's ultimate thesis considers Iraq an ironic failure of the Just War test, his position is already dated. Revelations of just the past few months concerning WMDs make this so since a pillar of Temes's position is that Iraq assuredly has WMDs. To be critical of Temes's exploration of a philosophy that should be timeless, simply because of its awkward juxtaposition to current events may seem a little too literal. But it's a fair criticism when you consider that the book is billed as a "Reflection on the Morality of War in Our Time," yet it barely touches upon one of the most crucial questions in this time: terrorism. This drawback makes the book incomplete.
Rating:
Summary: Admirable survey. Light on direction
Review: No philosopher me, I was interested in exploring the evolution of Just War thinking in a post 9-11 world. Temes's digestion and presentation of the development of Just War thinking--and how Christian, Jewish, Moslem cultures contributed to or appear in reflection of this philosophy--is good. Easy to follow and easy to interlace the attitudes of the Big 3 religions. What's lacking however is a true update of the philosophy into the 21st century. It is merely a reaffirmation of the right of the individual, a core premise of the modern Just War philosophy. The timing of publication also lessens Temes's conclusion. It went to press just as the ground war in Iraq was starting in 2003, and although Temes's ultimate thesis considers Iraq an ironic failure of the Just War test, his position is already dated. Revelations of just the past few months concerning WMDs make this so since a pillar of Temes's position is that Iraq assuredly has WMDs. To be critical of Temes's exploration of a philosophy that should be timeless, simply because of its awkward juxtaposition to current events may seem a little too literal. But it's a fair criticism when you consider that the book is billed as a "Reflection on the Morality of War in Our Time," yet it barely touches upon one of the most crucial questions in this time: terrorism. This drawback makes the book incomplete.
Rating:
Summary: Finely balanced, tremendously informative
Review: This is a different kind of book about war. It's highly philosophical, but easy to read. The end position is somewhere in the middle, but usefully so.
<< 1 >>
| 
