When does a war begin?

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 120903


The discussion about Hermione and Marietta has taken an interesting 
turn with the question of whether the WW could be legitimately said 
to be at war during OOTP, and if so whether that changes the way we 
look at Hermione and Marietta's respective actions.

Well, I think it is generally agreed that some actions are 
appropriate during war that are not during times of peace.  For the 
sake of this discussion, I'm going to stipulate that 
Hermione's "trick" with the list would be appropriate in a time of 
war.  So, was the WW at war in a way that would legitimate Hermione's 
action?

Well, the problem is that war isn't very easy to define.  The idea 
of "declared war" is a legalism coming from western European 
diplomatic traditions.  It and other so-called "laws of war" evolved 
largely as pragmatic measures to allow wars to be prosecuted swifly, 
efficiently, and professionally, and also so that disturbance to 
commerce could be anticipated and minimized.  Humanitarian concerns 
were certainly a factor, but very far down the list of priorities.
In any case, it is accepted in military and diplomatic circles that a 
declaration of war is a diplomatic maneuver, not anything having to 
do with whether a state of war does or does not exist and not having 
anything to do with strategic or tactical planning except in a very 
secondary sense having to do with how a declaration does on does not 
work to your diplomatic and poltical advantage.  The U.S. has not 
declared war since 1941, but it would be silly beyond belief to argue 
that Korea, Vietnam, the Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq were not wars.

Even war as an activity is hard to define.  There is a period in 
European history called The Hundred Years War (I think it actually 
lasted 130 years).  Was conflict constant during this period?  No.  
Yet it is considered historically a war.  Trying to determine when 
the Vietnam War began is notoriously hard.  In some ways it went back 
to the nineteenth century.  There are all sorts of states of war - 
full out war, major war, minor war, world war, theater war, simmering 
war, guerilla war, cold war, and the list goes on.  

In terms of HP, what applies is the interesting fact that one party 
can define themselves as being at war when other parties don't.  It 
can be said in terms of Vietnam that the Viet Minh thought of 
themselves as being at war long before (in sequence) the Japanese, 
French, and Americans did.  In the American Revolution the 
Continental Army thought of itself at war before the British or even 
the Continental Congress came to that conclusion.  In the Civil War 
period, certain Southerners and Abolitionists saw themselves at war 
long before that understanding became general.  And here comes the 
rub - people at war do, in fact MUST, act is if they are at war, 
regardless of whether that is a generally perceived state.

In the case of Hermione and Marietta, Marietta was not at war BUT 
HERMIONE WAS.  Being at war, Hermione had an interest, indeed she had 
a DUTY, to ACT like she was at war.  Therefore, was Hermione's action 
legitimate.  The answer, IMO, is YES, because Hermione WAS AT WAR.  
To act in another way would have been a betrayal of her duty as 
someone who had committed themselves to war.  That Marietta had a 
different understanding was unfortunate, but Hermione's duty in this 
was relatively clear.  It is true that Hermione had a moral duty to 
observe, as far as possible, the well-being of noncombatants, and IMO 
she did so.  After all, the pustules, embarassing as they were, were 
not life-threatening.  The Sons of Liberty dealt with such situations 
by tarring and feathering, and the Viet Minh dealt with it by 
vivisection.  Compared to those undeclared, unrealized wars, 
Marietta's punishment was mild indeed.

Lupinlore