The War on Terror creates a number of different ethical difficulties for any person conducting deep analysis. When I consider the War on Terror, I am struck by one key concept – violence. The war deals with violence in two ways. First, it is designed, at least on its face, to deal with violence and to prevent violence in the future. Perhaps more importantly, the War on Terror brings a boat load of violence to the places where the United States-led fighting force is taking its act. American bombs, though targeted and “smart,” blow up large buildings, occasionally killing civilians and always leading to come level of death and destruction. Service members of both sides are killed in huge numbers, and the violence leaves those who do survive with severe mental health issues after the war. These ethical considerations must be taken seriously by any person looking to perform thoughtful analysis on the issue. Can one use violence to prevent violence? Will this even work? Even if it will, is the right or ethical thing to do?
One might use a utilitarian framework in order to analyze the War on Terror. I would look at the number of lives that the war is supposed to save. If one believes what they are told by the authorities, then the War on Terror is a war that will eradicate an enemy that has proven itself capable of wiping out thousands of American civilians at once. There are a couple of different problems with this perspective, though. First, the concept that one can ever wipe out “terrorism” is faulty on its face. Terrorism is an ever-changing force with an ever-changing face. Killing one person may create two new terrorists. Because the enemy is largely undefined, it is very difficult for the war effort to pinpoint whether it is making any progress. Beyond that, this proposition can only make sense if one believes that the lives of American civilians are more valuable than the lives of human beings elsewhere in the world. The American bombing campaigns kill many civilians. More than that, they destroy villages, schools, and other bits of infrastructure, adding to the suffering of people in places where suffering is already occurring. This means that even if one accepts that the enemy is capable of killing many American civilians, the American war effort may be more damaging by killing more civilians. This can only be justified if one values the American life over the Afghan life.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"War on Terror in an Ethical Way".
In order for a War on Terror to be conducted in a proper, ethical way, it must be done with as little violence as possible. This is always tricky in war, as bombs are big and bullets are very real. The attacks must be targeted, though, using proper intelligence to pinpoint specific enemies. It must not kill civilians in large numbers or in small numbers. Using violence to prevent violence is a difficult argument. If violence against civilians is an ethical violation and a harm to be avoided, then bringing about more violence to civilians in an effort to stop violence to other civilians seems like a foolhardy plan. In essence, it trades the possibility of future violence for the certainty of current violence, all in the name of protecting some citizens of some countries over those citizens in other countries.
Can the War on Terror be conducted in an ethical manner? This depends upon the execution. On its face, the idea is difficult to swallow, and in execution, it becomes even more difficult. Though the United States has had mostly noble intentions, it is fighting against an undefined enemy in a war that has had far too much collateral damage. The mental damage to soldiers and the physical damage to communities has rendered this effort difficult from an ethical perspective.
