Just War Theory asserts that armed conflict can be fought in a way that safeguards moral and legal norms while responding to pragmatic/military imperatives. One of the ways in which it seeks to safeguard justice is through specific provisions for the immunity of, and due care for, the vulnerable and innocent. Unfortunately, two doctrines within Just War Theory – the Doctrine of Double Effect and the Doctrine of Supreme Emergency – suspend or vacate these provisions. The net effect is to render justifications inaccessible, leaving only excuses, the use of which establishes that no one is truly accountable, no meaningful guidance is available, and sheer self-interest may be allowed to underwrite terrible harms. This paper explores the implications of excuses and excuse-making for the laws of war, arguing that unless key doctrines are re-oriented, ‘Just War Theory’ risks playing out as merely ‘Excusable War Theory.’