The United States of America is currently engaged in military conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq. Both of these engagements can traced directly to the terrorist attacks of September 11th in which the two World Trade Centre skyscrapers were destroyed in New York City and thousands of American citizens were killed. Over the course of these conflicts American authorities have consistently used the rhetoric of Just War Theory to describe the actions which they have taken. It is the purpose of this paper to consider how much this rhetoric has in common with this thinking and also how much this is backed up by the material consequences of US military action in the countries described.
An essential part of Just War Theory is the belief that international relations are governed by something like a moral structure or possible over-riding law. In order for the theory to make sense then it must be possible to envisage a situation in which these laws have been broken and can, in some way, be restored by military action. In this way Just War Theory goes against more traditional views of international relations which present an inherently anarchistic view in which moral decisions do not play a part in international relations and foreign policy and in which force and self-interest are the only motivating factors. In the immediate response to 9/11 and in the actions which followed it, this emphasis on morality was clear. It was evident that the perpetrators of the attack had done something fundamentally wrong, and that the US government had a duty to both restore order, punish moral wrong doing and, while doing this, bring the wrongdoers to justice.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Just War Theory and the response to 9/11".
Just War Theory is a fundamentally christian form of ethics which states that military action is just if it is necessary to protect the lives of innocent people from harm. It traditionally views such action as a final resort and states that all attempts at negotiation should be attempted before resorting to the use of force. Immediately following the attacks of 9/11 the US government was keen to stress both that the attacks amounted to an act of war and also that there was no negotiation possible with those who were responsible for perpetrating them. Rather than describing a war against a single enemy or country, however, it was seen as a war against ‘terrorism’ itself. The recognition of an act of war against oneself is often a necessary component of a response according to Just War Theory. For example, it is often impossible to justify military action if it has not been established that war is unavoidable. By describing the 9/11 attacks as as an act of war conducted solely against innocent civilians and by describing this war as on ongoing event that demands action to prevent similar actions taking place the US authorities made it possible to consider their actions alongside Just War Theory.
Just War Theory also claims that any military action must be conducted with all possible concern for the avoidance of civilian casualties. This concern has also often a part of the rhetoric of the leaders of military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq. This seem to be particularly important as a successful attempt to stop terrorism must also take the form of a battle for the hearts and minds of the countries involved. This is made clearer if one considers the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks as those who were engaged in combatting already existing American Foreign policy. It would seem that in order to prevent a repetition of the attacks then it is necessary to make sure that ideologies which encourage them are not passed on to another generation of terrorists. In this way the tenants of Just War Theory also provide a realistic political target. This attitude is evidenced in several aspects of US military intervention whose examples include an emphasis on ariel and targeted strikes using Smart Bombs which are capable of discerning their targets and avoiding casualties alongside the implementation of sanitation, medical and educational programs in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
In conclusion the military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq has certainly made use of the rhetoric of Just War Theory and does, at points, appear to fit it. However, the question remains as to whether or not this actions is merely making use of this rhetoric in order to achieve political goals or is truly justified by the events of 9/11.
