¶ … War on Terrorism: Is it Justified?
On September 11, 2001, two separate airliners, loaded with passengers, were flown into the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. This was soon followed by a similar act in Washington, D.C. that destroyed part of the Pentagon. Passengers on another plane attempted to retake it from hijackers, and that plane crashed into the Pennsylvania countryside, undoubtedly preventing a fourth attack.
By the time the second plane flew into the south tower of the World Trade Center, we knew these were deliberate attacks. By the time the Pentagon had been attacked, there was a widespread perception that we were at war. Spokespersons and reporters drew comparisons to the attack on Pearl Harbor.
However, there are troubling differences to the attack of December 7, 1941, particularly in who the enemy was or is in each situation. There was no doubt in 1941. Japan planned the attack, sent the carriers, trained the pilots, and dropped the bombs. They had signed a pact with Germany and Italy, and the three countries had agreed that an attack on one was an attack on all. We were instantly cast into war in two different theatres against three different countries, but we clearly knew who the enemy was. As Pipes (2002) said, "WITH WHOM, or what, is the United States at war? The answer to this question has far-reaching implications for strategy, for public diplomacy, and for foreign and domestic policy alike. It may seem that the answer is obvious; but it is not."
This time, since September 11, 2001, these issues aren't as clear. This is the first time the United States has viewed itself as being in a state of war but not at war with another country.
Certainly some kind of retaliatory response followed by some kind of plan to prevent future assaults was appropriate and called for. However, one could argue that a war is a more extended and planned response. The goal of a war is to defeat the enemy. Can we even say who the enemy is in this case? If we cannot define who the enemy is, justification for acting against them seems tenuous. If the identity of the enemy shifts over time...
Terrorism Justified? According to Purpura (2007), terrorism as a term does not have a fixed definition. This effectively means that its usage and application is largely hinged on a myriad of viewpoints, be they political or religious. In this text, I concern myself with terrorism; its justification, usage and application. The Use of Terrorism by Powerful Governments to Delegitimize Less Powerful Governments Though terrorism cannot be seen to be a wholly biased
Terrorism Justified? When looking at the principles of war theory, the moral distinctions made between state-sponsored warfare and terrorism by stateless nations may not always be justified. The examiner must consider both the jus ad bellum, or justification for going to war, and the jus in bello, or how the war is prosecuted. Some ethicists state that acts of war can only be justified when committed by one nation against
The first article is a very good example of pro-Jefferson attitude in the press of the time. Wilson's article was published on January 7, 1805 in the True American, a newspaper from Trenton, New Jersey. Each year, around January 1, many newspaper editors of the time published short overviews of the events which had marked the previous year, and indulged in making predictions regarding the year to come. Reepublican editor
Terrorism The term "terrorism" is profoundly political, as can be seen by the numerous definitions of terrorism and the lack of a globally-agreed description. The myriad definitions show nations struggling to define "terrorism" in self-serving ways. Efforts to clarify and unify those definitions vary from legalistic to nearly bombastic. After listing many definitions from different nations and from within the United States, itself, this paper examines a legalistic attempt to lay
Global Jihad, a Myth or Reality The Jihad is often associated with a certain Muslim fight against the unfaithful, one that has been going on for decades now and which is unlikely to stop in coming years. However, despite this sustainable development of the notion and everything it entangles, it cannot be stated without a doubt that this is an obvious reality. This assumption is made based on the fact that
In modern terminology, and for foreign policy, political science and international law, crimes against humanity are any atrocious act committed on a large scale. They can be prosecuted in most any Federal Court System, depending on where they occurred and which population was part of the criminal activity. The implication for international law is that crimes against humanity are subject to universal jurisdiction, which means that States can exercise their
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now