Terrorism Morally Distinctive from War - Essay Example

Name : xxxxxxxxxxx Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : What, if Anything Makes Terrorism Morally Distinctive from War. Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx What, if anything makes terrorism morally distinctive from war? Introduction According to me terrorism and war are synonymous to each other. Terrorism entails the affliction of some sort of pain so as to get something or to have something done which is similar to war. They both require their perpetrators to believe in their cause and thus execute the form of persecution that their masterminds choose. These acts result in sadness, turmoil and more often than not death. Most recent discussions argue that terrorism is not morally accepted such that we do not put into mind the political agendas of the individuals who take part in it. On the flip side a great number of people are able to justify war. My objective in this paper is to show that there is nothing that makes terrorism morally distinctive from war. Terrorism is defined by a number of governments as acts that are perpetrated by their opponents, done by policy changes and by a group of people who are driven to change political systems (Held, 2003. The United States government views terrorism as an act done by clandestine agents or by sub-national groups. The aforementioned definition is not satisfactory. This is seen in Argentina when their troops made a great number of suspected people to disappear in their attempt to disseminate fear. According to Gordon and Lopez, Israeli’s state championed torture is deemed as a form of political terrorism (Rodin, 2003). It is duly noted that torture is not only used to get information out of a person but might also be used to control a population as a whole. The State can manage that by the use of airplanes, military and the likes. From this it is seen that terrorism is not only an act done state opponents but is also done by state proponents. There can also be instances in which terrorism is sponsored by certain governments to inflict terror in states without it. According to the United States, countries such as Syria and Iran are thought to facilitate and sponsor acts of terrorism. War can also be sponsored by different governments. For instance the dispatch of troops in Iraq by the United States and the British clearly shows that war can be sponsored by other governments to cause turmoil in countries without it (Held, 2003). Terrorism is a form of political violence. It is thought that the Al-Quaeda have political motives since they are trying to champion religious domination in politics. It is therefore implied that its violence is ultimately political although it does not incorporate the utlilisation of compromise and dialogue. Similarly; war is also a large scale version of political violence. On the contrary, the extent of war is more limited than that of terrorism (Smilansky, 2006). However, according to Walzer who argues that terrorism is different from war since it is thought to target innocent civilians are thus not morally justifiable. This definition does not hold water since the destruction of the U.S marine barracks in the year 1983 in Lebanon which resulted in the death of several marines and the bombing of the USS Cole in the year 2000 would not be viewed as acts of terrorism and thus deviate from the definition of terrorism. Also the term civilians or the innocent is not clear cut. The innocent might only refer to children. However, taking into consideration the type of people who make up the army; it may be constituted by people, who do not have a choice in being combatants, by individuals who do not agree with their governments’ policies; for instance some Israeli soldiers. Some military men have been forced to serve due to economic oppression or some other social oppression. Some soldiers are themselves children (Smilansky, 2006). This leaves a gaping hole in the definition of terrorism. Since acts that are not morally justifiable will not be able to separate the innocent from the not so innocent, supporters and non-supporters of political policies among other examples. It is also argued that there should not be any exemptions when it comes to the targeting of when it comes to political violence (Coady, 2003). This is because today is a world in which democracy prevails and as such some of the civilians voted in the policies that they are so vehemently fighting. It is noted that the Israeli public put Sharon back in government in 2003 which implied that they were in agreement with his policies and mode of governance. In a nutshell, terrorism should not be distinguished from war on the basis of its targeting civilians. Terrorism is similar to war since they are both political violence which spread on their targets and others who feel like they are targets as well. War does the very same thing; for instance the “Shock and Awe” part of the 2003 war of the United States against Iraq. Terrorism is similar to war on a small scale. Terrorism may be constituted by a single event for instance the Oklahoma City bombing while on the other hand war constitutes a number of events. Another similarity is that there are a number of varying types of terrorism just like there are many varying kinds of wars. The following are the different kinds of wars; civil wars, world wars, small wars, wars of liberation and revolutions (Waldron, 2003). Governments attempt to bring out that individuals who make use of terrorism are people who cause violence that would otherwise be non-existent. On the contrary they bring out the violent means that they use to tramp terrorism as justifiable. It is however; argued that if governments complied with terrorist demands then there would not be any form of violence. If this were so then there would not be any form of violence during the fight for the independence of Chechnya. It is also argued that counter-terrorist movements are only but the cost of the maintenance of status quo and like wise the price paid by the terrorists is only but a cost made use of to pursue their goal. It is noted that the status quo is not morally superior as it maybe inclusive of dire violations of human rights or on the other hand rightful goals. It is argued that the moral grounds for the fight of a right or the government’s refusal to concede to the demands is should be morally defensible. From a moral standpoint the use of violence to obtain what a person wants or its use to thwart change is not morally suitable (Coady, 2006). There is an argument that the proponents of terrorism more often than not do not achieve their goals and therefore other ways of meeting their goals is highly justifiable and more successful. However, the burden of making other ways successful is vested on the government and those in authority. It follows that when non-violence protests do not make a change then it will be difficult to argue that non-violence makes a difference were terrorism is not able to. Leila Khalid a terrorist argued that the Palestinian hijackings that took effect in the 1970s were but a means of putting the age of question of who Palestinians were. She argued that at the onset they were regarded as refugees and that when they showed discontentment; the rest of the world acted by giving them aid in the form of tents and still did not intervene. Terrorists believe that the only way in which they can be listened to is by instigating terror against humanity. It is solely in the hands of the government and those in authority to prove otherwise (Scheffler, 2006). Benjamin Barber argues that it is prudent to involve terrorists in decision making other than the imposition of decisions on them. “Violence is not the instrument of choice even under tyrannical governments because confrontations based on force usually favour the powerful…But it can become the choice of those so disempowered by a political order (or a political disorder) that they have no other options…..To create a just and inclusive world in which all citizens are stakeholders is the first objective of a rational strategy against terrorism.” According to Lloyd Dumas counter terrorist campaigns are not effective. It is noted that the Israelis way of countering terrorism by military intervention has only resulted in more terrorist acts focussed at them; Israel. The result has been miserable Palestinians and Israelis who live in uttermost fear. Dumas argued that economic encouragement and political development is the only successful means of abating terror. The claim that war on terrorism is the only way to thwart it, does not hold any water (Waldron, 2006). It should be noted that there does not exist any good terrorism just as there does not exist good war. It is sad that humans have not figured out a way to avert war and terrorism. However, it has been argued that some wars are justifiable. In the same breath, it is argued by Andrew Valls that if the war theory can be able to justify state propagated violence then if follows that terrorism instigated by non-state actors can also be justified in the same breath (Scheffler, 2006). According to the United States wars are only justified when conducted by states and are not justifiable when done by non-state groups. The United Nations advocates for rights to resist colonialism, invasion and foreign domination. Fullinwoler argues that since the United States was formed by rebellion against protestors then it follows that wars should be justified when it comes to protecting oneself from oppressors. However, he argues that terrorism is so different as it appeals directly to moral judgement and thus its tantamount to individual views. The justification of terrorism is heavily pegged on its goals and outcomes. It is argued that terrorism is preposterous when geared towards the religious tyranny on unreceptive civilians, if its goal is to eliminate democracy and to infringe on human rights. However, the goals are not the only things used to judge terrorism as war. It is argued that terrorism that results in the death of the innocent; for instance children is deemed worse than that targets property or that results in the demise of a small number of individuals. This is synonymous to the justification of wars. Conclusion Both war and terrorism emanate from a belief. The Rwandan genocide emanated from a belief that one tribe was superior to another. The Al Queda and ultimately the Osama camp believe that the United States is out of line in their activities as they believe they go against the Koran. War entails fighting and the affliction of physical pain so as to get or have something done. For instance war was the major form of negotiation that was made use of so as to overcome colonization. Terrorism for instance the September 11th bombings of the United States were seen as means to show discontentment by the Arabs with the United States. Terrorism may result in death and intense sadness. For instance suicide bombings, results in devastated families and friends. War results in death for instance the Somali civil war. Both relates in a volatile society. The terrorist acts in the United States have left civilians scared of each other and thus has caused a lot of scepticism generally against Arabs. Arabs who are American citizens are discriminated against; their privacy violated as seen fit by the government. War torn countries are also very volatile. The Somali who have been at war for long have a lot of guns in circulation and a very slow economic growth. The similarities between war and terrorism do not make terrorism distinctive from war. Bibliography David Rodin (2004). “Terrorism without Intention”. Pp 752-71 Virginia Held, (2004). Journal of Ethics; “Terrorism and War. 59-75 C. A.J. Coady, (2004) “Terrorism, Morality and Supreme Emergency. 772-89 Jeremy Waldron, (2004). A Journal of Ethics “Terrorism and the uses of Terror. 5-35 Saul Smilanksy (2004) Ethics 114; “Terrorism, Justification and Illusion”. 790-805 Samuel Scheffler (2006). A Journal of Political Philosophy “Is Terrorism Morally Distinctive? Igor Primoratz (2004, ed.), Terrorism: the Philosophical Issues. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Gordon Graham, Ethics and International Relations, ch. 6 Michael Walzer (1978) Just and Unjust Wars. Harmondsworth: Penguin Frey, R.J & Christopher, M (1991). Violence, Terrorism and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Charles et al (1985). International Ethics. Princeton N.J: Princeton University Press. McMahan, J (1994). Journal of Political Philosophy; Innocence, Self-Defense and Killing in War. Saul Smilanksy (1996). Journal of Applied philosophy; The Ethical Dangers of Ethical Sensitivity.” Oxford: Oxford University Press. David, H (1987). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford; Clarendon. Read More