Morally Preventing Terrorism Analysis

Better Essays
The Fundamentals of Morally Preventing Terrorism Irregular war is an asymmetric war that is fought between a state and a non-state or guerilla insurgency. Many times irregular war develops into a form of terrorism on the side of the weak, non-state actor. Although both actors hold different morals, both are trying to win the hearts and minds of the people. This ‘center of gravity’ is the bridge between the two, however terrorists try achieving this through their extremist ideals. These radical moves are sometimes justified by the state actor overreacting out of fear and abandoning their moral obligations. This type of coercion is an effective strategy used by most extremist jihadi organizations like Al Qaeda and ISIS. This fear and overreaction …show more content…
These crescendos can be defined as a proper melding between consequentialism and deontology. The balance between the two views can ideally create a positive feedback loop, when negotiating with terrorists. For instance, if a strict consequentialist view was used it would be considered a quick path to a slippery slope to torture and other somewhat morally conflicting actions, that would be justified by the ideal outcome of defeating terrorists. An example of this approach can be paralleled to post 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq. The United States involvement in the Middle East is viewed as unproductive and ultimately unnecessary. More harm than good occurred in the region in the past decade. Bush declared torture to be legal as a necessity for interrogation of the worst terrorists. However this strategy lacked a cohesive relation to the US’s moral duties to protect and not violate human rights, yet it was defended on the basis of the end result being an annihilation of extreme jihadi terrorists. No matter the end result torture is never the answer. This can be supported by Bellamy in the essay “Against Torture.” Bellamy claims that “torture is wrong precisely the same reason as terrorism: because it involves harming non-combatants” (Bellamy 140). However, with a purely deontological approach it may be …show more content…
Therefore by the United States developing a specific strategy and enforcing it, other countries can look to the US as a positive example. This is because by focusing on only one major power being the enforcer it allows other states to lack the ability to prevent terrorism. Subsequently this allows the growth of larger, more aggressive insurgencies to develop such as ISIS. The motives to prevent terrorism should be consistent with most world powers, therefore allowing a cohesive atmosphere to aid one another in preventing and prosecuting terrorism. A possible strategy I developed was the increase in intelligence gathering in order to accurately define the threat and then act on it. Preventive war should be avoided and preemptive war should be considered. Along with preemptive war, I agree with author Alex J. Bellamy that “the prohibition of torture is a peremptory rule, as derogation is considered impermissible” (Bellamy 126). It should be avoided and considered a last resort for gathering intelligence. I developed this reasoning through a combination of consequentialism and realism. This stems from my belief that terrorists can be negotiated with but with the challenge of separating their extreme hatred from their intrinsically human self-interest. I believe that states should try and understand where the insurgents’ hatred stems from because most

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    According to Mack, “ for insurgents ‘war’ is total, while for the external power it is necessarily ‘limited’, meaning that weaker side has its country and independence to lose in a war so it fights with everything it has. The stronger, on the other hand, don’t face thread of getting occupied so their will to win is not as strong. Record agrees with Mack’s assessment and further argues that inferior will to win was one of components that caused the U.S to lose Vietnam. “Key Vietnam War players in the Johnson Administration grasped neither the disparity in interests and will that separated the United States and the Vietnamese communities nor its consequences. They could find no reason for the enemy’s tenacity and staying power”, states Record.…

    • 1211 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Should our government use torture or enhanced interrogation as a way to save lives? The answer is yes, we should! Many view torture as an inhumane tactic and believe that torture should be eradicated from all governments. There are others, however, who see torture as a cruel but necessary act for their government to commit, and those people are right. Torture is a necessity a government can utilize because it leads to the capture U.S. enemy targets, helps obtain information to prevent future attacks, and ensures the protection of the U.S. and its citizens.…

    • 1207 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Also, in terms of consequentialists, if the truth would create more harm than the lie, it would be advisable to lie, to avoid certain scenarios such as pain or suffering. Lastly, another example where lying should be deemed permissible is in terms of war. In this case, both sides are enacting methods of deceit, and thus should be able to lie to maintain and protect national security. All in all, Kantian ethics in regards to truth has a few issues, especially in terms of the various evils that arise in society, as addressed by…

    • 1232 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Joseph Nye’s consequentialist point of view opposes Schelling’s irrationality, writing; “moral reasoning about nuclear weapons must pay primary attention to consequences.” Schelling’s Brinkmanship model aims to push the enemy as close to the nuclear brink as possible. By not paying primary attention to the consequences of nuclear deterrence, Schelling advocates risking MAD, which is morally unacceptable. This in turn reinforces that deterrence is not necessarily morally acceptable by default, but it must be tailored in such a fashion that moral acceptability is the primary concern. This can only be achieved if self-imposed restraints are effectively…

    • 2105 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For some insurgencies, terrorism is held in disdain as the goal is to win the hearts and minds of the population rather than disrupt their everyday lives. Furthermore, these movements are severely lacking in resources and implement tactics that try to minimize their own casualties. This is prominent in Che Guevara’s concept of guerilla warfare when he states that terrorism is, “of negative value, that it by no means produces the desired effects” (2013, 35). In Pape’s argument though, specific requirements are laid out that provide an environment that increases the possibility of suicide terrorism within an insurgency. First, the target of suicide attacks are democracies because they are perceived to be “especially vulnerable to coercive punishment” (Pape, 44).…

    • 1052 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Legalization Of Torture

    • 865 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Humans cannot be classified based on their actions. The legalization of any form of torture will desensitize people to the inhumane treatment people are subjected, despite if they deserve it or not. What happens when the tables are turned, when a country or the winning team is no longer the one writing history? Instead of protecting their citizens, countries will put them in greater danger of torture by other…

    • 865 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Just War

    • 3235 Words
    • 13 Pages

    As explained by Cushman, it was “justified on the basis of protecting the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein 's oppressive government and shielding the world from dangerous weapons in the hands of a tyrannous regime”, meaning that “Iraq required intervention” (Cushman, p. 404). The author understands that the war did not go as hoped, and that the existence of weapons of massive destruction and links with terrorism was not a fact, but he believed that the suffering of the people to Hussein’s regime was enough to consider it a “just war”. In fact, the author asks to some comprehension of Bush’s actions despite his many mistakes, since it could have made a difference for these innocent people, although the results were not the expected for them. Moreover, the war with Iraq follows some other criteria in order to be considered “just”. As it has already been explained, a “just war” can only be started when a government or authority is legitimate and there is a real chance of defeating the opponent.…

    • 3235 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cause Of War Analysis

    • 1050 Words
    • 4 Pages

    security in a post September 11 world”( Goldstein & Peevehouse 2014). This statement concludes that the rise of terrorism persuaded the American people and the Bush administration of the danger that Sadam posed to America which produce an agreement to take military action internationally to ensure the safety of American citizens. Coupled with the support and belief of Sadam’s threat to the U.S. enabled the Bush administration to go forward with its plan to fight the war on terrorism. “At the interstate level, the war may be attributed to the predominance of U.S. power. With no state willing to back Iraq militarily, the United States was free to attack Iraq without fear of a large scale response” (Goldstein & Peevehouse 2014).…

    • 1050 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    There are a numerous like principals between the Just War Theory and the Al-Qaeda’ jihadist actions, such as the morality of their actions, just cause, right authority, and protections for the noncombatant individuals. This can be seen in the extreme, according Shari ‘a law, which is interpreted by Al-Qaeda and extremist Sunni Islamic scholars from the teachings of Mohammed in the Qur’an. According to the Islamic teachings, they should note the difference between the non-innocent and the innocent civilians among their enemies and use the lowest amount of force necessary. They further go on to say that if it is important to fight, it is also important to win. If it is necessary to bend or even break the rules of war to win, then they are excused in doing so.…

    • 1353 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cathy Young, in the article How Much Torture is OK, makes a very valid point when talking about torture. She believes if some torture is considered to be OK all torture will be considered OK. To be more specific, if they make exceptions for some circumstances, then it’ll be hard to justify between what is right and wrong. She also mentioned that the ticking time bomb situation was highly improbable. Young is a pragmatist, she understands that there is no right answer to the situation but in this case she wants to preserve America's core…

    • 781 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays