Though Just War Theory began as a philosophical discipline in the time of St. Augustine, its validity has transcended its ancient origins and has found prominence in the ethics of modern warfare. The counter-terror war initiated by the United States of America in Oct. 2001 was a military response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. This new type of war provides Just War Theory with a new and interesting moral question regarding the ethics of war.
During President Barack Obamaís Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech he referenced Just War Theory and the need for its moral guidance in the current War on Terror. He made a† compelling argument for the theory of just war; it is clear that a war that seeks to end terrorism and the immorality that encompasses it ought to be conducted in an ethically sound manner. In respect to this new type of war, the moral high ground is an absolute necessity, but this non-classical war scenario begs the question of whether a counter-terror war can be just.
The current war in Afghanistan is characterized as a non-classical war as the two actors in the conflict are a state in the traditional sense and a non-state actor. The United States of America and members of the coalition fall into the category of a state, which is different from the non-state actor terrorist group, as the designation of a state grants the U.S. and its allies recognizable rights from the international community. As UN member states, these countries are granted the right to be free from unprovoked attacks and the right of self-defense as codified within article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Furthermore, these states are recognized as having the specific rights of territorial integrity and political sovereignty that accompany the statehood of a legitimate country. The non-state actor terrorist group, on the other hand, lacks any of these rights in the international realm. These are groups acting within a state, presumably unaffiliated with that stateís governance, that seek to expand upon fear and who aim their destructive force against both military personal and innocent civilians.
Issues arise when considering the justice of a counter-terrorist operation as Just War Theory traditionally operates between states, with recognized political and military ends. This particular moral doctrine has been used to reduce the killing potential of the worldís militaries since St. Augustine and has been a staple of military ethics ever since. Though the ends of this particular war are similar to those of a classical war scenario between two states, i.e., to secure peace and the resolution of armed conflict, the means in which the United States seeks to accomplish its objectives must be understood in light of the ethical challenges that surround a non-classical war.
Within traditional Just War Theory there are six conditions that must be met before the action of resorting to war can be considered just, these six conditions are referred to as ìjus ad bellum.” The six ethical questions that must be answered are whether there is a just cause, right intention, proper declaration by a legitimate authority, probability of success, proportionality and last resort. These conditions together form the ethical framework for judging the moral merit of classical wars and can also provide guidance when judging the moral merit of non-classical, or counter-terror wars as well.
The ìjus ad bellum” principles of Just War Theory can be applied to a non-classical war such as a counter-terrorist war; however, the principles must be applied with special force and consideration. In certain respects, a counter-terror war cannot be fought in the same style or format as a classical war. The need to act preemptively to neutralize terrorist threats so that they cannot capitalize on weapons of mass destruction blurs the ethical boundaries of just war theory. For instance, the principle of just cause states that a war may only be conducted in self-defense and if a direct physical harm has occurred, but it seems that the United States cannot reasonably wait to be attacked by a terrorist cell using a nuclear weapon or a similar weapon of mass destruction. It seems that the bright line established by just cause is easily distorted with regards to counter-terrorism.
The principle of probability of success creates a significant issue with respects to the ethical strength of a counter-terror war. It seems difficult to destroy an enemy that does not fight utilizing traditional military strategies, let alone an enemy with no known stationary or definitive country of origin. A terrorist cell can be located within a wide range of countries, including the country it seeks to attack. The United States commenced a war to combat an enemy that routinely changes its headquarters to whichever country it can secure the safest refuge. The clear problem with this is the inevitable expansion of the counter-terrorism operation, if the United States will combat al Qaeda in Afghanistan it is only logical to conclude that it will combat al Qaeda in any country it resides in.
President Barack Obama and his military advisors seem to have recognized this issue, as is evident by the scaling back of military forces in Iraq and the increase of troop levels in Afghanistan. While the probability of success for a counter-terror war is limited, focusing on a specific target within a specific country may yield stronger results and the effective end of the al Qaeda terrorist threat in at least one country. Securing Afghanistan could produce a domino effect in the region, as it would demonstrate that al Qaeda could in fact be beaten, which would diminish the likelihood of al Qaeda expanding its forces and ultimately increasing the probability of success for the counter-terror war.
Though Just War Theory predominately works to ensure ethical and moral integrity during classical war scenarios, it is clear that it can be applied to non-classical wars as well. While non-classical wars such as the United States War on Terror provide a new set of ethical challenges for military planners and just war theorists, its versatility as an ethical framework allows it to adapt to the evolving stages of modern warfare.
Scott Smith is a contributor to the Voice.† He can be reached for comment at SSmith10@wooster.edu.
