"... in one sense all wars are wars of choice - only when enjoined with a subjective need do they become wars of necessity - and they always become so enjoined: America could invade Canada tomorrow for causes it deemed just and Canada would have a choice to retaliate, which, if it did, the war would then become necessary - and short. The line is so blurred it's virtually meaningless. Agincourt was a battle invoking both choice and necessity that symbolized a war that invoked both choice and necessity as one in the same thing - the whole idea of a 'just' war comes from a time when wars were a highly ritualized tool of conflict resolution the utility of which was entirely understood and accepted by both [or more] parties - choice or necessity? Just or unjust?... for great powers, all wars are wars of necessity and that necessity is a choice: in other words, to put it more crudely, use it or lose it. The second Iraq war was therefore entirely justifiable if only because we're facing a new enemy we don't know how to fight: we have to learn how to fight it. That is the albeit brutal yet logical imperative of great powers. Of course a rational people want to 'regulate' war, to give it a coherent legal framework and that 'civilizing' need is fundamental - but the fact remains, war is a beast that ultimately exists outside of such niceties and once a great power loses sight of that reality, it is doomed..."
