This paper will explore the ‘deep morality of war’ by examining normative conflicts within the just war tradition in the context of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will demonstrate that within the just war tradition itself there is a tension between the view that the justice of the actions within a war (the jus in bello) depends upon the justice of the war as a whole (the jus ad bellum), and the view, institutionalised in the laws of armed conflict, that the two are independent. These contrasting views of the normative structure of war lead to different understandings of what war is as an institution and as a practice and have fundamental political implications in terms of which actors and actions they legitimize and delegitimize. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan provide examples of how these normative conflicts play out empirically, as actors on both sides in these conflicts view their opponents as criminals who are not entitled to participate in the conflict. This affects the practice of war as, for example, those captured are classified as ‘illegal combatants’ and not prisoners of war. This, in turn, exacerbates the political conflict and makes reconciliation more difficult. Understanding how these normative tensions within the just war tradition contribute to political conflict helps further the understanding of the way in which justice conflicts arise, contribute to, and shape the very nature of war itself.
