Among all this weeks readings I found it interesting that we continually try to justify war and go so far as to set up rules for when war is just or unjust. First and foremost I think that this is a noble endeavor that seeks to limit war to times when it is necessary, but I also find it a bit over-optimistic that we think everyone will follow these rules and I think that is where the issue of TK is most evident.
As it stands now warfare is not anywhere near what is has been throughout history. Battles are not fought in the open where you know your enemy and can easily choose to shoot or not. Battles now are fought in skirmishes, urban settings, using hit and run tactics and covert operations. The complication of war has blurred the lines of proper conduct. As well, now that our use of TK is a counter terrorism tool, are we at war with terrorism? The U.S. apparently is, but terrorists aren't a state and they most certainly cannot be trusted to maintain the principles of just warfare.
As well, in general the ideas behind just war are extremely vague. How does one measure the proportionality of violence? Does everyone share the same views on right and wrong? No doubt at one point these ideas were common and agreed on but now, just war theory is dead. Combatants frankly are difficult to identify and chances are rarely given to execute a TK twice. So TK is just, not by just war theory, but because as of right now and given our goals in this war, it is our only option. Detaining would be near ineffective, deterrence would rarely work, only eliminating the threat works.
As it stands now warfare is not anywhere near what is has been throughout history. Battles are not fought in the open where you know your enemy and can easily choose to shoot or not. Battles now are fought in skirmishes, urban settings, using hit and run tactics and covert operations. The complication of war has blurred the lines of proper conduct. As well, now that our use of TK is a counter terrorism tool, are we at war with terrorism? The U.S. apparently is, but terrorists aren't a state and they most certainly cannot be trusted to maintain the principles of just warfare.
As well, in general the ideas behind just war are extremely vague. How does one measure the proportionality of violence? Does everyone share the same views on right and wrong? No doubt at one point these ideas were common and agreed on but now, just war theory is dead. Combatants frankly are difficult to identify and chances are rarely given to execute a TK twice. So TK is just, not by just war theory, but because as of right now and given our goals in this war, it is our only option. Detaining would be near ineffective, deterrence would rarely work, only eliminating the threat works.
Really interesting post! Do you believe that the war on terror is a result of a change in the times? I was thinking that the war on terrorism in general was just a misguided form of war that sought to attack an atrocious form of warfare rather than a perceived target. Do you believe such a form of warfare has only been possible in recent history?
ReplyDeleteRegardless, I agree with your idea that it seems like the world is undergoing a huge advancement in warfare technology over the past century and JWT needs to constantly update alongside it (which is not an easy task).
Also, I think that your point about TK being just is very interesting. I believe that urgency can definitely factor into the reason why TK is necessary, but I think it must be questioned if we are eventually going to reach a point (or if we have already) when the purported urgency is being overblown.
I definitely think that terrorism has developed much like guerrilla warfare developed, as an effective way for ill equipped parties to fight superpowers such as the U.S. I do not think our war on terrorism is misguided but I don't think we are conducting war by the historic definition, we are fighting across many borders against an enemy that we cannot easily identify so we need to reexamine our tactics.
DeleteIf TK is just in an asymmetric war like the war or terror, do you think that it is something that we should use more in order to move away from the older concepts of warfare in order to be more effective? If so,would you say that the U.S. government has come to realize this since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq?
DeleteI think that if warfare continues to be conducted against sub-national groups across borders such as our current operations, then yes I think that we need to move away from the older concepts of war and begin to seriously implement a plan as how to proceed. I'd say we have realized, much like Vietnam, that bigger guns and better trained troops do not always win wars. Diplomacy can't win all wars either. Eliminating the threat is the only sure way unfortunately, the tactic will change every war to fit the situation, but against an enemy such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, etc. we need to cut off the head and each one that grows to replace it.
DeleteI think what you are saying is really compelling, but I fear that the mentality of deterrence and detainment being ineffective is what gets us into conflicts in the first place. As a nation, the United States does not give deterrence a chance. Looking at Iran, the sanctions that we have put in place have crippled the country economically and have prevent to be effective. We never really took this approach with Iraq, so I do not know that we could say deterrence does not work.
ReplyDeleteI'd say I agree with you to a certain extent, we can deter when we have the UN behind us, and often times they are. But with our popularity falling and our wars becoming messier, this may not be a viable option, especially when nations like China and Russia have less and less reason to comply with us. As well one might argue Iran still is pursuing nuclear weapons and so while the sanctions have crippled the economy, they haven't hurt the determination of the government.
Delete