Walzer's Argumentative Analysis

War as a historical phenomenon is complex and multifaceted. In battlefield or operational theater possibility of confusion is easy to admit when is not clear what is allowed and what is not. People are principal elements of the war because in wartime people are divide in combatants and noncombatants, and in order to limit the effects of armed conflict different category of noncombatants require different obligation of combatants but unfortunately there exist no war without casualties.
The outbreaks of hostilities are regulated by the principle of differentiation of combatants and noncombatants. Walzer view combatants as persons trained to fight, armed with weapons, and required to fight on command. Noncombatants are viewed as people who are not trained and prepared for war, who do not fight or cannot. These are women and children, priests, old men, wounded or captured soldiers. These groups consist mostly of civilians. Moreover, Walzer draws a line between noncombatants who lost their rights not to be attacked by combatants because of their warlike activities and those who have not. On the one side, they are those called “munition people”. They are class of people who directly …show more content…
In this case combatants are obligated to make distinguish when to attack “munition people”, and when not. They can be attacked only in their factories when they are engaged in activities threatening their enemies but not in their homes. Moreover, they cannot be attacked if their activities can be stopped, or their products seized or destroyed. The law of war regularly recognizes this obligation. That cannot be said of the second category of noncombatants that Walzer distinguish them as innocent people. Their activities during wartime are not different during peacetime. The violence against them that results death can be considered as a