Obama's War on Terror and the Just War Tradition - Case Study Example

Your name] [Your coursework] Obama's War on Terror and the Just War Tradition: A Critical Look The use of force to intervene against nations to protect the welfare of its people, its nation's interest, values, and call of the course of history, even without war is sometimes necessary and justified. This seems the argument of the United States President in justifying the nation's military efforts in countries like Iraq and Libya. For centuries, great world leaders and statesmen have tried solving the war dilemma, and the so-called “big wars” are causing millions of people killed, lives disrupted and international systems being destroyed. Yet attempts and efforts have continued to produce less-than-satisfactory outcomes. Thus, if we are to believe President Obama's stance on war, it seems that all efforts geared at attaining peace might already be useless, futile and idealistic. To understand Obama's take on the just war tradition, it would help to look into his actions against the Libyan crisis and the country's war against terror perpetrated by Osama Bin Laden. For many centuries, the just war theory has been seen as a very influential, dominating morality yardstick that stirred both moral and legal discussions and discourse to justify whether a war committed against another nation is morally justifiable. At the onset, the agenda of just war is that while war is morally-abhorrent the same is also sometimes necessary on certain conditions. To justify that war is necessary, proponents of the just war principles asked that the following must be addressed: 1) jus ad bellum, which contemplates that it is just to resort to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which contemplates that there is a just conduct within war, after it has been initiated; and a more later addition, the 3) jus post bellum, which concerns there is just manner to end or terminate the mounting of war through peace agreements (The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2009). Hence, framing the just war tradition in our contemporary setting, when countries and nations justify the use of force to attack enemies or threats of terrorism or genocides, it is interesting to look into the proportion of the non-military to military casualties and question the repercussion of the just war tradition toward collateral damage or indirect killing of civilians. Obama's War on Terror To determine whether Obama called the principle of just war in its actions in Iraq, it would be best to look into its action before and after the fall of the Taliban regime. This is necessary because the previous regime of former U.S. President George Bush was faulted for failing to meet the criteria of just war in its preemptive strikes. The Bush campaign of war and weapons of mass destruction took its root from giving full attention to bin Laden to Saddam Hussein and this move implies that the Bush Administration employ actions just to avoid something which did not exist at that time. The just war tradition only allows war to be waged when there exists a reasonable probability of success. This aspect was not present in this action. In the current regime, the United States' action in Iraq concentrated in finding bin Laden. If the just war doctrine is to be applied, Obama's actions can be said to have the moral right or duty to kill Bin Laden. The criteria of just war was satisfied because the moral obligation to protect the noncombatant innocents. Besides this point, while the target is only one – bin Laden – the subject is considered a major force and capable of mobilizing the global network of terrorism to mount terrorism and cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent lives. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration, in announcing that – Osama Bin Laden – was dead, has fulfilled one principle of just war tradition: to redress a wrong suffered. It could also be argued that the killing of the most wanted terrorist in the world was justified. For many years after the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, the terrorism waged by this single man has been causing billions of dollars that nations are spending for war. His death would help the United States and other allied nations to save billions of dollars in resources and could help these nations address their country's financial solvency. But if the purpose of the waged war is to compel nations to conform to America's Western and pro-democracy ideals, such is considered not justified. In fact, the just war theory does not say that the United States has the moral right or duty to go into other countries and force them to conform to its strategic plan, as well. To this, the Obama Administration may be faulted when before he accepted his Nobel Peace Prize he sent 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan. He explained that this effort was an extension of his policy that invoke the post-World War II system that contained the cold war. In contrast, when the United States overstayed in Afghanistan by keeping its 100,000 troops in the country as part of war following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, such is considered no longer justified. The reason here is that the Taliban has been ousted and it appears that war is no longer the agenda of the U.S. but to impose its own path to transform Afghanistan into a pro-democracy state. Because instead of protecting the innocent, which is central to the criteria for just war, the use of force can sometime derail its aspiration for peace. But Obama's response implies that maintaining 100,000 troops in Afghanistan is justified, saying further that Obama's commitment in exerting force is sometimes necessary because “it cannot eradicate violent conflicts in our lifetimes” (Zeleny, 2009). Libya and Qaddafi's Dictatorship In relation to the United States' involvement in Libya, Obama defended and justified that the intervention by the nation, among many other reasons, was meant “to stop a massacre.” Obama's appeal was that the United States is not like other nations, who can ignore it when threat of violence on a horrific scale is likely. He was also adamant to respond to his critics, and expressed what he deemed the United States' assets is: “a unique ability to stop that violence” (Libya Speech, 2011). Careful not to incite more criticisms of the action, Obama's address to his nation last March 28 this year impresses that an involvement is not necessarily war, yet he appealed, without particularly naming it, that the necessity of the action falls under the just war concept. To search for its meaning, war refers to a more formal engagement between warring states; while intervention implies an effort meant to stop but it is just short of war. Contemporary just war theorists argued that intervention can learn from just war thinking, including its responsibility to take into account practical considerations – such as a nation's prospects to win the war – without completely entering the premises of war (Walzer, 2008). Other criteria that may be invoked when discussing just war principle of protecting non-combatants, correct an injustice that remains uncorrected, reestablish a just social order, and authorized by a legitimate organization or person like the United Nations (Kirkpatrick, 2011). In the case of Libya, Obama elaborated that its attempt at intervention was not the U.S.'s lone attempt at asserting its power, but backed by “an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of the Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves.” In bid to assure its people that its troops will be protected, Obama explained that Gaddafi's forces can be halted without requiring the American troops on the ground. Obama even limited his speech to not to mention that punishment must be carried out against the Libyan leader who has committed grave injustice to the Libyan people nor an intervention by the United States would be the panacea to re-establishing a just social order in Libya. There was also not a single mention in Obama's speech that the proposed intervention can be classified as winnable or can be counted with possibility for victory. To this end, the intervention by the Obama Administration in Libya may be said to have meet the qualifications of just war. Conclusion In the case of Obama's attempts to justify its war against terror and then its intervention in Libya, he appealed that although there may not be direct threats to the country's safety, however it must act when its interests and values are. Given that the United States is not like other ordinary nations, it does not have the imperative to suddenly stop responding to challenges that would threaten not only its own but the common security of the world. The nation's power and influence has grown exponentially wide that any attempt to ignore calls for its action would be deemed backing out of its role to protect and provide safety to other nations. Otherwise, many interpretations may be had for waging war and intervening. Using Obama's own words, some who accused his Administration for acting would even mention that it is not the United States' role to perform the role of a police in global affairs and help nations where innocent civilians are violently assaulted by their own governments. Viewing this, the United States' actions may be construed as negative in its homeland for not attending to the more pressing problems of the country because it allows itself to meddle with the affairs of distant nations. As it is, the United States, it cannot be denied, is also a magnet for conflict. It can also be accused of always on guard to asserting its supremacy. What nation will not want to be considered as such? Supremacy is one that is sought, prized so well by nations that each is willing to sacrifice and invest so much just to reign supreme. In addition, supremacy in terms of standing and economics, gives pride. Thus, the use of force and war then, even it justifies its action as morally sound, can sometimes mean the negative. Although not financially the richest nation yet in terms of standing, the United States is viewed as the most powerful nation in the world. Given this case, there will be no situation that the nation will be expected to not help in solving the world's quest for peace but also the security of humanity. Obama understood these as well, apart from knowing that it is just war thinking to remember that everyone has the moral obligation to protect innocent human life wherever it may be, and particularly in the United States. Therefore, Obama's defense of the actions in Libya, and even in Iraq moves toward, even if it doesn't quite reach, a full articulation of what just war should mean for us. Therefore, interpretations of the just war theory continue to evolve, with some extolling it and some damning it; with some crediting it to a world reality in restoring balance and this we learned in the lessons offered by Obama's war against terror and intervention in Libya. Whatever interpretation just war theoreticians may finally have, the fact is that it came through beyond some pragmatic and sometimes, subjective control of man. It is thus a warning that excesses and abuses of powers will eventually be checked along the way. References Catholic Just War Theory. U.S. Catholic Bishops' 1983 The Challenge of Peace. Web. 8 June 2011. Just War Theory. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Web. 7 June 2011, from Kirkpatrick, Frank. 30 March 2011. “Is Libya A Just War?” Huffington Post. Web 7 June 2011. Obama, Barack. 28 March 2011. Full Transcript: Barack Obama: Libya Speech. Web. 7 June. 2011. Walzer, Michael. "Critical Edge": More Like a Spoon Than a Knife.” Independent Review. 3 October 2008. Web. 5 June 2011. . War. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 4 June 2000. Web. 5 August 2009. . Zeleny, Jeff. “Accepting Peace Prize, Obama Offers 'Hard Truth.'” The New York Times. Web. 7 June 2011. . Read More