How many times have you heard it said that the war in Iraq was a "war of choice" rather than a "war of necessity"? The implication (hard to miss) is that we didn't have to wage war. We wanted to. Or rather, President Bush wanted to. There's even a whiff of whimsy about "war of choice," as if President Bush sent soldiers to die for little or nothing, just because he felt like it. This is of course obscene, but our political discourse has become obscene in recent years. There seem no limits—not even decency—to what is said.
Let's unpack the distinction between the two types of war. There's a sense in which no war is necessary and every war is chosen. Was it necessary that the United States enter World War II? No. We could have taken the hit at Pearl Harbor and stayed out of the fray. But we chose to fight. The question we should be asking is whether the choice to wage war in Iraq was a good choice, not whether it was a choice. Some choices are good, some bad. Just think of the choices you make every day.
Suppose I learn that my neighbor is tormenting his dogs. I try to persuade him to stop, but he won't. I hear howls every night. Since persuasion doesn't work, I try manipulation. I cajole, plead, and even deceive. That doesn't work, either. Finally, I resort to coercion. I threaten the neighbor with harm if he doesn't stop tormenting his dogs. If this doesn't work, I'm left with two options: do nothing or use force. Suppose I break into my neighbor's back yard and liberate his dogs. Is that a break-in of necessity or a break-in of choice? It's a break-in of choice. But it's the right choice.
Perhaps the distinction between wars of choice and wars of necessity is supposed to map onto the distinction between aggressive and defensive wars, or between wars one starts and wars to which one responds. Saying that the war in Iraq is a war of choice is to say that it's a war of aggression, with the implication that this is unacceptable.
But as even Jonathan Glover (hardly a warmonger!) points out, not all wars of aggression are wrong and not all defensive wars are right. (See Jonathan Glover, Causing Death and Saving Lives [Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1977], 268-70.) The question is not what type of war it is, but whether it's right or wrong. This is a normative question. It needs to be faced directly.
May I suggest that we stop distinguishing between wars of choice and wars of necessity? It not only doesn't resolve the important normative questions about war; it obscures them. The main task of the philosopher, in my view, is to elucidate and clarify. Okay, the main task of the analytic philosopher is to elucidate and clarify. Some philosophers seem hell-bent on obfuscating.