Throughout human existence, war has been a prevalent issue amongst countries fighting for their prominence. Using Neta Crawford’s Just War Theory, the prompt’s hypothetical situation meets all requirements for jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum (Crawford, 2003). War in the Middle East is justified on the grounds of it being self-defense used to disable terrorist groups in the region and bring an end to the stranglehold ISIS has on the area. The initiation of war is just, given the severity of the attack on America. Not only is the number of people killed a staggering amount, but the reach ISIS had in accomplishing attacks in 4 countries suggests ISIS is more than capable in combatting other countries to gain territory. This
…show more content…
Crawford’s description of jus ad bellum in Just War Theory calls for war being the absolute last resort (Crawford 2003). The U.S. putting boots on the ground would be a “last resort”, after the U.S. has done everything in its power to prevent U.S. troops fighting ISIS, from providing artillery to Syrian opposition forces (Schmitt and Gordon 2015), to using drone attacks in an effort to back countries fighting against ISIS (Cooper and Schmitt 2016). Jus ad bellum also calls for a legitimate authority to initiate war (Crawford 2003), which the U.S. unquestionably is. The U.S. can successfully destroy the Islamic State militarily, and topple Assad and assemble a government that the people can support. With many countries having an unfavorable view of ISIS, including Russia, the Kurds, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq, one problem does come up, and that is differing views on Assad staying in power (Moser and McDonald, 2016a). The U.S. can be the third party to enforce the compromise between the Syrian government and the rebel forces (Moser …show more content…
The biggest hurdle the United States would have to jump over is reassuring citizens of the Middle East that the war would not be similar to the Iraq War, after relations with the U.S. have been damaged (Brooks 2013). While true to some degree that citizens of the Middle East have some contempt for U.S. intentions, there are too many countries, including Middle Eastern ones (Moser and McDonald 2016a), that do not support ISIS for America to look alone in this war. America always has Vietnam and the Iraq War be referenced when defending their actions, but a war against ISIS is not similar to either of those wars. America is going in to destabilize and remove an entire self-declared nation, which has already inflicted attacks on Belgium, Turkey, France, and more. To secure support from Americans at home would not be difficult either. Some would suppose that Americans are still experiencing war fatigue, which is the tendency for public support for American military intervention to decline over time (Moser and McDonald 2016d). This is easily refuted with the importance terrorism had placed on it during the 2016 election cycle (Hook 2016). Americans are fearful of the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, and would not be opposed to fighting ISIS, especially after a brutal terrorist attack that would invoke nationalism and thus the
Crawford’s description of jus ad bellum in Just War Theory calls for war being the absolute last resort (Crawford 2003). The U.S. putting boots on the ground would be a “last resort”, after the U.S. has done everything in its power to prevent U.S. troops fighting ISIS, from providing artillery to Syrian opposition forces (Schmitt and Gordon 2015), to using drone attacks in an effort to back countries fighting against ISIS (Cooper and Schmitt 2016). Jus ad bellum also calls for a legitimate authority to initiate war (Crawford 2003), which the U.S. unquestionably is. The U.S. can successfully destroy the Islamic State militarily, and topple Assad and assemble a government that the people can support. With many countries having an unfavorable view of ISIS, including Russia, the Kurds, Iran, Turkey, Jordan, and Iraq, one problem does come up, and that is differing views on Assad staying in power (Moser and McDonald, 2016a). The U.S. can be the third party to enforce the compromise between the Syrian government and the rebel forces (Moser …show more content…
The biggest hurdle the United States would have to jump over is reassuring citizens of the Middle East that the war would not be similar to the Iraq War, after relations with the U.S. have been damaged (Brooks 2013). While true to some degree that citizens of the Middle East have some contempt for U.S. intentions, there are too many countries, including Middle Eastern ones (Moser and McDonald 2016a), that do not support ISIS for America to look alone in this war. America always has Vietnam and the Iraq War be referenced when defending their actions, but a war against ISIS is not similar to either of those wars. America is going in to destabilize and remove an entire self-declared nation, which has already inflicted attacks on Belgium, Turkey, France, and more. To secure support from Americans at home would not be difficult either. Some would suppose that Americans are still experiencing war fatigue, which is the tendency for public support for American military intervention to decline over time (Moser and McDonald 2016d). This is easily refuted with the importance terrorism had placed on it during the 2016 election cycle (Hook 2016). Americans are fearful of the rise of radical Islam in the Middle East, and would not be opposed to fighting ISIS, especially after a brutal terrorist attack that would invoke nationalism and thus the