Arguments Against The Just War Theory

Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS, has permeated the minds of Americans from the right wing to the left wing. Most agree that something needs to be done to ensure the safety and security of the United States of America, but what exactly needs to be done is an entirely separate argument. If ISIS launched a series of attacks against American embassies and caused mass casualties overseas, it is the United States’ responsibility as the indispensable nation to act against them and for those who cannot fight for themselves. According to the Just War Theory, American military intervention is justified on moral grounds in this situation.
The first portion of the Just War Theory is jus ad bellum, or just initiation of war. This means that in
…show more content…
In the war on ISIS, both of these criteria are met. It is undoubtedly true that the United State’s military force is something to be reckoned with. The full force of 100,000 American troops in both Iraq and Syria creates a likely chance that the US could prevail. Regarding proportionality, jus ad bellum indicates that the war should not cause more harm than the other party was initially causing. In this case, the United States’ intervention is justified because ISIS poses a threat not just to the people of the United States, but internationally because it utilizes the “boomerang effect” when dealing with terrorism and tactics (Moser and McDonald, 2016b). The boomerang effect is the idea that an entity such as ISIS trains its foreign followers and then if their territory falls, they send their followers back to their home countries to wreck havoc. This has already been seen in the France bombings. The millions of lives at stake rest on the shoulders of the United States and its allies to stop ISIS, thus proportionality is not an issue in deciding whether or not this war is just – what is at stake if ISIS is not stopped is far greater than the possible effects of the

Related Documents