Just War Theory is something I believe in. However, I believe some modifications may be needed in contemporary America. Snauwaert asserts it is somewhat of a misnomer to suggest the United States is at war with terrorism because terrorism is a tactic . Thus, Snauwaert suggests the United States is at war with the practitioners of terrorism. This is a dangerous suggestion. One must separate the cause from the effect. If a doctor treats the symptoms and not the cause of the disease, the disease will continue to thrive. Likewise, if the United States only “treats” the practitioners of terrorism the disease of terrorism will thrive. The “war on terror” is fought on two fronts: the ideological and the physical.
On the ideological front, I fall back upon a statement a statement I make frequently. This is somewhat of an ironic statement for someone spending thousands of dollars on an education in government. The government does not have the answer. The government cannot legislate morality nor reverence. If there is not a natural inclination towards what is “right” …show more content…
Just War theory gets more complicated when our enemy is a non-state actor such as ISIS. It is my belief that Just War theory needs to be revised or rethought to better understand its application in this context. The Jus ad Bellum if viewed through a traditional state entity prism may prove difficult to satisfy. I am referring to checkpoints such as right authority, proportional response, retaliatory versus preemptive strike, etc. However, I believe the Jus ad Bellum is satisfied if viewed through a non-state entity prism. Additionally, I believe the United States should be wear of using the U.N. as a “right authority” workaround for the non-state entity Jus ad Bellum dilemma. Those who rely on the U.S. for aid and sometimes protection from their own government are the real losers when the U.S. needs UN approval for military
On the ideological front, I fall back upon a statement a statement I make frequently. This is somewhat of an ironic statement for someone spending thousands of dollars on an education in government. The government does not have the answer. The government cannot legislate morality nor reverence. If there is not a natural inclination towards what is “right” …show more content…
Just War theory gets more complicated when our enemy is a non-state actor such as ISIS. It is my belief that Just War theory needs to be revised or rethought to better understand its application in this context. The Jus ad Bellum if viewed through a traditional state entity prism may prove difficult to satisfy. I am referring to checkpoints such as right authority, proportional response, retaliatory versus preemptive strike, etc. However, I believe the Jus ad Bellum is satisfied if viewed through a non-state entity prism. Additionally, I believe the United States should be wear of using the U.N. as a “right authority” workaround for the non-state entity Jus ad Bellum dilemma. Those who rely on the U.S. for aid and sometimes protection from their own government are the real losers when the U.S. needs UN approval for military