Author David Rodin’s chapter
titled, Terrorism without Intention, was
very thought-provoking in that he immediately began to analyze and critique
many accepted definitions of the term terrorism, consequently formulating his
own definition through the intermixing of the others. Through his assessment of the term, Rodin
subsequently addresses contemporary ethical and morality issues associated with
terrorism and its relation with war, peace, and civilian life. Rodin frequently poses an argument asking how
a group, person, or act can be evaluated morally and ethically. Someone’s intention can never be truly known
except only by the person themselves; therefore how can we label someone as a
terrorist, or something as terrorism?
Rodin asserts that many philosophers are “skeptical of the view that the
intention of the agent in performing an action can be determinative of the permissibility
of the act in this way,” (Rodin 560).
Much of modern
reasoning for why man commits an act of terrorism is due to differences in
moral, religious, or ideological beliefs.
How can someone truly be labeled a terrorist when in possibly their
beliefs what they are doing is permissible or just? Mullins also poses this argument in her
article defending her stance that for Americans, we believe we are not the
terrorists. However to other countries
or groups, it is just could be just the opposite. Pertaining to their beliefs or experiences,
we are the ones who have stirred fear or terror in their lives, families, and cities. However I believe that Rodin makes one
essential position when explaining the different definitions of the term; “the
key to a moral understanding of terrorism is that is consists of in the use of
force against those who should not have force used against them,” (Rodin 555). I believe that to be an essential factor to
the concept of terrorism. Intention or
not, ideological differences aside, terrorism is the use of force against those
who have not provoked it.
Although drones may
seem like an essential and dynamic aspect of the U.S. military forces for their
skill and precision, it is speculated (and in some studies proven) that they
have still caused mass civilian casualties.
In these cases, they are a force of “terrorism” because they have hurt
and killed people who are wholly unrelated to the goals of these war efforts. If they were used with more restriction and consideration,
then I would not see them as such enablers of fear and alarm. But if they involve taking the lives of those
who have not been deemed dangerous or involved, then the use of drones only
exacerbates the War on Terror and creates a cycle of hate and brutality. They are a testament to the era of war which
we now live in; however they are not for the sole protection of human lives,
like many uses of the Packbot, such as disarming IED’s. Drones are a modern, advanced form of warfare
technology, and if not utilized correctly they can become devices of terror.
I see one potential issue with this idea of not harming those who should not be harmed. I think that that is just as unknown as intention. In fact it seems to me that it is more unknown. Many "terrorist" groups very clearly state their intentions and their goals and thus this is clear. On the other hand we never truly know where anyone's allegiances lie in war, in many wars civilians have armed themselves and joined the fight, as well clandestine agents infiltrate our forces and wreak havoc. So while I think their are definitely innocent people in war it is difficult to classify everyone as either combatant or noncombatant, innocent or guilty and like I said far harder than discerning motives and intentions. I think collateral damage is a fact of war, it can be treated as a war crime if it is the result of negligence or recklessness but it is wholly separate from terrorism.
ReplyDeleteThis is true, but I think that this is where you could fit 'negligent and reckless' into any definition. In addition, there are certainly contexts where there are armed combatants trying to pose as civilians or purposefully putting civilians at risk. But it seems to me that much of this is done in a different context (i.e. urban warfare) than drone attacks. So while I think you are right to bring this up, we need to make sure that we are taking the context into account.
DeleteFor me it is not about harming those who should not be harmed. Like you said, this can be hard to discern. However I do believe there is a difference in opposing violence or force on those who have not provoked it. Even with the precise and modern technology used in drones, it is not a mechanism that allows for only the target to be destroyed. I believe that drones are still not precise enough to not cause collateral damage and thus should be used with much more discretion and for situations only where the end goal is the only thing destroyed. Whether civilian death is high or not, you also must think about the surrounding areas in which we are destroying. Whole towns and communities are obliterated from these attacks and people, often women and children, lose everything. This also goes in with the negligent and reckless clause of terrorism because even though it may seem like collateral damage is small, you must think about the people on the "other side" that you are affecting.
ReplyDeleteI think that the idea of terrorism being defined by the act of harming noncombatants is interesting. However, it piques my interest that such a definition would lend itself to cast doubt on drone warfare in particular. Yes, noncombatants do suffer from drone warfare, but are more noncombatants lost in drone warfare than in other forms of warfare? Obviously, from the readings assigned this week, it is apparent that gauging these numbers is difficult since many of them are sourced back to the US government. However, if warfare that results in the loss of noncombatants is considered terrorism, then would that mean that most forms of warfare are terrorism?
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly my issue with viewing terrorism as harming noncombatants, that is far too broad of a definition and eventually leads us to call most acts of violence in war "terrorism." It seems foolish that we should change all of previous and well established definitions and rules of war to fit this now all encompassing immoral set of acts called "terrorism." If anything terrorism is a very specific crime and most definitely not all crimes.
DeleteI am curious as to what you mean by using them with more "consideration" and "restriction?" Where would you draw the line. is it important that a country adopts a policy of not allowing innocent casualties and if so are drones even capable at created warfare where only those who "deserve to die" should die? As I am thinking about this, I open the idea of drones only being used for the destruction of billings and resources and being removed from combat that involves killing humans.
ReplyDelete