Analysis Of Just War Theory And The US Counterterror War

1003 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Criticism of just war theory

Terrorist attacks are a major crisis for a state, the attacks can’t only damage the state physically but they can also have an impact on the state’s economy. Nevertheless, state leaders must act accordingly and do their best to defend and protect their state. After experiencing the attack on the American embassies the President of the United States proposed a plan to have military intervention in both Iraq and Syria. The plan requires both Congressional and public approval along with the requirements brought by Just War Theory. As Crawford noted on “Just War Theory and the US Counterterror War,” no matter how bad war might be, it is necessary for there to be rules that can help prevent more harm. Thankfully, the proposed plan to go to war against ISIS can be justified on these moral grounds. Just War Theory has three components jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. Each of the components can explain what makes a war just and moral. Jus ad bellum or just initiation of war is achieved if a state has a just cause, uses armed conflict after all other means are exhausted, if it has a right intention to go into war, if there is a chance of success, and if it the ends of the war are equal to the means of war. The …show more content…

The analysis over Crawford’s definition for Just War Theory can reinforces the statement above. Crawford’s argument talks about the prevention of greater harm as long as “moral judgments about right action [are] rooted” toward each particular component of the definition. However, it was noted that Crawford’s conclusion about terrorist wasn’t completely true and excluding them from the Just War Theory was more complicated. Byford uses different arguments to explain the difficulty of excluding terrorists as states. Within his comparison there are different war times when states acted as radical as terrorist but we never labeled them as

Show More
Related

  • Terrorism is Wrong

    615 Words  | 2 Pages

    To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference between terrorism and conventional war. Both two types of political violence have some common natures related to morality like posing threat to civilian lives. McPherson argues that conventional war usually causes more casualties and produces fear widely among noncombatants. He focuses on defending the claim that terrorists sometimes do care about noncombatants and proportionality. This viewpoint infers that terrorists do not merely intent to do harm to civilians. As a matter of fact, they sometimes put civilian interests in the first place. Those terrorists caring the victims would not resor...

    Read More

  • Summary Of Jeff Mcmahan's Killing In War (2009)

    1534 Words  | 4 Pages

    Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this

    Read More

  • Rhetorical Analysis of President’s Address To The Nation Post 9/11

    1656 Words  | 4 Pages

    Since the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration has been calling every citizens and every nations to support his Middle East policy. Nonetheless, the U.S. has been involved in the middle-east struggle for more than half of the century, wars were waged and citizens were killed. Yet, political struggles and ideological conflicts are now worse than they were under Clinton’s presidency. As “President’s Address to the Nation” is a speech asking everybody to support the troops to keep fighting in Iraq, I, as an audience, am not persuaded at all because of his illogical fallacy in the arguments. In this essay, I will analyze how and what are the illogical fallacies he uses in the speech.

    Read More

  • Military Ethics – Humanitarian Aid in Somalia

    2908 Words  | 6 Pages

    Jus ad bellum is defined as “justice of war” and is recognized as the ethics leading up to war (Orend 31). Orend contends that an...

    Read More

  • Total War Vs Just War Theory

    378 Words  | 1 Pages

    The idea of Just War Theory was suggested by Ambrose (Perry, “Ethics and War in Comparative Religious Perspective”), formulated by Augustine, and finally refined by Aquinas. Just War Theory was not made to justify a war (since everyone can say that even total destruction was just), but rather it brings war under control of justice, so that when all nations practice it, war would eventually cease

    Read More

  • Just war theory

    1005 Words  | 3 Pages

    The idea of war and how it can be justified, is a rather trick topic to touch on, as there are diverse ethical and sociological implications that have to be weighed on every step. Mainly we could look at the “Just War Theory” and see how that could possibly apply to the real world. To be able to enter a “Just War” nations must meet six criteria in Jus ad Bellum (Going to War). The criteria is as follows: “Just Cause”, “Right Intention”, “Proper Authority and Public Declaration”, “Last Resort”, “Probability of Success”, and lastly “Proportionality”. However the tricky bit of the Just War theory, is that all six of those elements must be met, to go to war in a morally justifiable way. This could make an easy blockade for nations to veto another nation's effort to enter a war, even if morally justifiable. The problem with an internationally mandated “war-committee”, means that the fate of another nation's well-being could very well be in the hands of a nation with an ulterior motive. It could also fall into the grounds of new found illegal activity. Lets give a hypothetical situation, say nation 'X' wants to go to war with nation 'Y' in an act of self-defence, but it doesn't meet some of the requirements for “Just War theory” and is thus blocked by the war-committee. Then as a consequence, nation 'X' is invaded and annexed due to lack of defence. Nation 'X' could have made an effort to prepare for war, but at the cost of possibly being condemned and sanctioned by the war-committee. In an overall view, it's easy to see why the UN or other major international coalitions will not adopt a system based around Just War Theory.

    Read More

  • The Correct Decision of Dropping the Bombs on Hiroshima

    1200 Words  | 3 Pages

    McDonald. “Just War Theory.” Humanities. Boston University. College of General Studies, Boston. 24 February 2014. Lecture.

    Read More

  • The Just War Theory

    1705 Words  | 4 Pages

    “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.” As depicted in the quote by Ernest Hemingway war is a difficult situation in which the traditional boundaries of moral ethics are tested. History is filled with unjust wars and for centuries war was not though in terms of morality. Saint Augustine, however, offered a theory detailing when war is morally permissible. The theory offers moral justifications for war as expressed in jus ad bellum (conditions for going to war) and in jus in bello (conditions within warfare).The theory places restrictions on the causes of war as well as the actions permitted throughout. Within early Christianity, the theory was used to validate crusades as morally permissible avoiding conflict with religious views. Based on the qualifications of the Just War Theory few wars have been deemed as morally acceptable, but none have notably met all the requirements. Throughout the paper I will apply Just War Theory in terms of World War II as well as other wars that depict the ideals presented by Saint Augustine.

    Read More

  • Theoretical Perspectives on Iraq War 2003

    2300 Words  | 5 Pages

    Followers of Realist school of thought argue the case of 2003 Iraq war from the standpoint of power and Security. The Bush administration’s rationale for launching a pre-emptive attack against Iraq was based on two misleading assumptions: firstly, Iraq had or was developing Weapons of Mass Destruction (along with Iran and North Korea) and secondly, that it was aiding and protecting terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda. Such a conjecture based on unsubstantiated evidence helped Bush administration conjure up a dystopian situation which justified 2003 invasion of Iraq under the pretext of “security maximization”. This explanation was given in pursuance of the realist assumption that States’ as rational actors always act in accordance with their national security interests.

    Read More

  • Analysis of Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations

    1192 Words  | 3 Pages

    The limits that a ‘just’ war places on the use of aggression between states for both states

    Read More

  • Nicholas Timasheff's Involvement In The United States

    316 Words  | 1 Pages

    According to this section of chapter 15 of out text, sociologist Nicholas Timasheff identified 3 conditions which are essential for a war to occur. I chose to apply the findings described in this part of the chapter to the involvement of U.S. in fighting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis Of Thomas Nagel's War And Massacre

    1542 Words  | 4 Pages

    Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.

    Read More

  • Is State Terrorism '?: Is State Terrorism A Valid Concept?

    1279 Words  | 3 Pages

    The concept of state terrorism is highly debated. The main opposition to state-terrorism declares that states have legitimate monopoly over violence, therefore, state-violence cannot be considered terrorism (Lacquer). Furthermore, conceptualizing particular properties of state-terrorism has furthered complicated the debate. For instance, should state-terrorism constitute external conflict or internal conflict; also is the normative strength of non-state violence as compelling as

    Read More

  • Just War Theory Essay

    763 Words  | 2 Pages

    The just war theory is described by Thomas Massaro in his book Living Justice as the “principle that warfare might be justified under certain conditions” (108). The complexities involved with international relations makes determining a just war very difficult. Even though historically pacifism hasn’t gained much traction within Catholic circles, it currently is gaining popularity with many mainstream Catholics. With so many differing views on military action, one might ask, “What determines a just war? How can we balance the need for peace with self-defense?” An examination of criteria for a just war and critiques written on this topic might shed light on these two questions.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Fair War

    1032 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...on preservation of human lives, in particular the civilian population. Due to the tendency which has outlined since Napoleonic wars of the increasing involvement of the civilian population in military operations relevance of the principles of fair war steadily increases; creation of weapons of mass destruction in particular increases value of fair war. Though the idea of fair war has centuries-old history and its principles are fixed in a number of the international documents accepted after the II world war, ethical reliability of the principles of fair war for ordinary people is unevident especially as in one war they completely weren't executed. The moral and legal sense of fair war consists that they allow to rationalize standard restrictions of military actions and to formulate accurate criteria of a moral and legal assessment of such immoral phenomenon, as war.

    Read More

More about Analysis Of Just War Theory And The US Counterterror War

Open Document