Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Chandler 1 Nikolas Chandler Professor Spendlove Philosophy 1120 30 November 2013 Terrorism Throughout the history of the world,

fighting and war have been used to resolve conflicts: brother against brother, father against son, enemy versus enemy. As the methods and techniques of fighting and war have progressed, so have the rules that govern them. When entering war, most enter assuming a fair fight, however that is not always the case, especially when it comes to modern warfare and terrorism. Terrorists do not fight by the rules, and yet those fighting against them are expected to respond in a morally right manner. There have been many theories presented of the morality of war and the just war theory has been the most widely accepted. Some believe that the just war theory is outdated when it comes to fighting terrorism, but it is still a vital and essential outline for moral war. The just war theory sets up the moral framework for war in three main components: rules for justice of war (jus ad bellum), rules that govern just and fair conduct in war, and responsibility and accountability of warring parties after the war (jus in bello) (Moseley 48). Jus ad bellum discusses the justice of war: there must be a just cause, war must be the last resort, it must be declared by the proper authority, it must be undertaken with the right intention, there must be a reasonable chance for success, and the end must be proportional to the means used.

Chandler 2 The most important aspect of jus ad bellum is having a just cause. There are many causes for war such as violation of territory or trade embargoes, but few of them are morally just. Alexander Moseley, author of Just War Theory, stated, whilst not going into the reasons why the other explanations do not offer a useful condition of just cause, the consensus is that an initiation of physical force is wrong and may just be resisted. Self-defense against physical aggression, therefore, is putatively the only sufficient reason for just cause (49). Rules that govern just and fair conduct in war are fairly straight forward. The rules begin with those who can declare war: the governments of each party. If the government is a just government, then they would only declare war as a last resort, and therefore, it is reasonable for that government to declare war. The farther a government gets from being just, the less reasonable it is for that government to declare war. The last piece of the just war theory is jus in bello which divides accountability of war into three sections: discrimintaion of targets, the principle of proportionality, and responsibility of war. According to jus in bello, as soon as someone puts on a uniform, they are legitimate targets within the war. It is unfair, and moraly wrong, to attack civilians and innocents. If land is taken in a war, the principle of proportionality dictates that the country should reclaim the land taken and nothing more otherwise it is a violation of the just war theory. Along with this, all those who are a part of the war are held responsible for their actions. If one soldier shoots another, it is covered under war, but as soon as an innocent is involved they have turned from soldier to murderer (51-53). The perception of war has changed throughout the ages, especially recently. What once was thought to be a necessary evil or a moral duty is now an every day occurrence.

Chandler 3 The Vietnam War helped change the scope and perception of war because it was rife with injustices. Not only were both sides astoundingly brutal, the United States lost the war and the confidence of its people. Colonel Anthony Herbert said it best when he stated, if anything has happened to our country as a result of the Vietnam War, it is our national infection with the sickness of the numbers game. We reduced the blood and suffering and the death and destruction to mere ciphers, and in so doing we reduced our own souls (Keen 65). During Vietnam, the world looked at war in an entirely new light numbers instead of lives. This dehumanization of war caused the world to step back and reevaluate. It became very apparent that humanity, morality, and justice needed to be a part of war for the people to accept and support it. Western countries realized that morality and justice have become a military necessity (Walzer 57). With terrorism beginning to become as common as the television, there was a choice to be made. Terrorists do not fight by the laws of war, so how could one fight against terrorists using those same laws? This caused the United States, in particular, to take another hard look at the just war theory. Jus ad bellum has flexibility within the framework which can be good or make things complicated. Some scholars believe that jus ad bellum, and therefore the just war theory, is too broad and allows for a plethora of interpretations. For example, many Western nations have taken the just cause of self-defense and used it to justify preemptively attacking another country to stop a worse attack from occurring. They consider this a just cause because they are fighting in self-defense, and it will work toward a more peaceful world. Critics disagree because preemptive strikes can cause more problems by destabilizing governments and economies rather than promoting peace

Chandler 4 (Moseley 49). After the terrorist attack in New York on September 11, 2001 the United States decided to declare war on terrorism citing jus ad bellum with the just cause of selfdefense and preemption. They had just been attacked and reserved the right to go to war against the oppressor. The first order of business was defining terrorism: Washington regards international terrorism not only as a military adversary, but also as a criminal activity and criminal conspiracy (Luban 72). Many assumed the those-who-are-not-with-us-areagainst-us mentality when it came to terrorists and terrorism. Some wrongly assumed that since many of the terrorists were Muslim that all Muslims were enemies, and should be treated as such. However, just like any Christian religion, majority of Muslims prefer forgiveness rather than a call to arms (Hashimi 69). It is interesting to note that just war theory prescribes that all other avenues should be investigated first before declaring war. Especially with a war on terrorism, defined as fighting against criminal activity and criminal conspiracy, there is no known end in sight. Once unleashed, war is not like a sport that can be quickly stopped at the blow of a whistleand its repercussions last for generations. (Moseley 50). The second order of business was figuring out how to fight terrorism. The main thing that separates terrorists organizations from soverign states is that there is no main face or place that represents the will of the whole. When two soverignties fight, there is a known leader and location to contact and possibly negotiate. This cannot be said for terrorists; there is no opposite number to negotiate with. There is no one on the other side to call a truce or declare a ceasefire, no one among the enemy authorized to surrender (Luban 76). The United States declared al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden the

Chandler 5 specific enemy and reserved the right to stop any others who might engage in similar endeavors. They defined the enemy knowing well that in a war for hearts and minds rather than for land and resources, justice turns out to be a key to victory (Walzer 57). The United States military took special care to train for close quarter combat situations and to recognize the difference between combatants and noncombatants. In other words, the military had now accepted the just war theory and knew that all actions would be scrutinized. Much scrutiny did follow. Critics of the just war theory who disliked that it was adopted by the military claimed that the easiest way to resist it is to make noncombatant immunity into a stronger and stronger rule, until it is something like an absolute rule: all killing of civilians is (something close to) murder; therefore any war that leads to the killing of civilians is unjust; therefore every war is unjust (Walzer 58). The response is simple: modern warfare has changed the rules of engagement there is no difference between a soldier and someone aiding a soldier. Therefore, war is still just because precautions are being taken and fewer, if any, civilian deaths occur (Moseley 52). As in any controversial topic, the correct answer depends on who is asking the question. The just war theory gives the best outline of moral warfare. It requires a just cause, rules for engagement, and responsibilities to all involved. It also requires that each party that contemplates entering into war explore all other options first before doing so. The war on terrorism fits into the just war theory because it was in response to an act of aggression. As Walzer so wisely stated, the work of the virtuous is never finished (62).

Chandler 6 Bibliography Hashmi, Sohail H. "Interpreting the Islamic Ethics of War and Peace." Spendlove, Gregory. Ethics and Moral Problems: Case Studies Readings. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake Community College, 2013. 68-71. Keen, Sam. "The Enemy as Abstraction." Spendlove, Gregory. Ethics and Moral Problems. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake Community College, 2013. 64-67. Luban, David. "The War on Terrorism and the End of Human Rights." Spendlove, Gregory. Ethics and Moral Problems: Case Studies and Readings. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake Community College, 2013. 72-76. Moseley, Alexander. "Just War Theory." Spendlove, Gregory. Ethics and Moral Problems: Case Studies Readings. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake Community College, 2013. 48-54. Walzer, Michael. "The Triumph of Just War Theory (And The Dangers of Success)." Spendlove, Gregory. Ethics and Moral Problems: Case Studies Readings. Salt Lake City: Salt Lake Community College, 2013. 56-63.