Morally Preventing Terrorism Analysis

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