Michael Walzer’s "Just and Unjust Wars" caused a revival of just war theory and has given a useful framework for analyzing morality in war.
This dissertation will use just war theory as a moral framework for evaluating U.S counterterrorism after 9/11. First by giving an overview of just war theory and a literature review. Then there will be an analysis of the moral pitfalls and benefits inherent in the individual methods of counterterrorism. After that I will show how these methods have been applied practically by analyzing U.S domestic counterterrorism and U.S counterterrorism in the Middle East.
The findings of this paper will show that U.S counterterrorism since 9/11 has consistently violated just war moral principles, but is ultimately morally unjustifiable because it has not provided a good chance of success for preventing terrorism.
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1: JUST WAR THEORY
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
CHAPTER 3: COUNTERTERRORISM METHODS
CHAPTER 4: U.S DOMESTIC COUNTERTERRORISM
CHAPTER 5: U.S COUNTERTERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST
CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Themes
This dissertation utilizes Just War Theory as a rigorous moral framework to evaluate U.S. counterterrorism policies implemented in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. The central research question examines whether these security measures, ranging from domestic surveillance to foreign military interventions, align with moral principles or if they are ultimately unjustifiable due to their lack of efficacy in preventing terrorism.
- Application of jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria to counterterrorism.
- Evaluation of domestic policies, including the PATRIOT Act and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
- Analysis of foreign counterterrorism methods, specifically drone warfare and the Iraq War.
- The role of "success" as a necessary condition for the moral justification of security policies.
- Critique of the "supreme emergency" justification in the context of modern terrorism.
Excerpt from the Book
CHAPTER 1: JUST WAR THEORY
Originating from Christian theorists, such as Saint Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, just war theory seeks to determine whether or not a war can be considered morally just. Criteria for a just war is broken in to three categories; jus ad bellum (the right to go to war), jus in bello (right conduct within war), and jus post bellum (justice after war). I will focus primarily on jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Since jus post bellum pertains mainly to post-war punishment of war criminals and national reconciliation, it is not very useful in analyzing the morality of counterterrorist policies. But before going in to jus ad bellum and jus in bello it is important to note criticisms of just war, such as the feminist perspective. But despite the feminist critique of just war, the elements of jus ad bellum and jus in bello provide a useful framework for analyzing counterterrorism.
The feminist view of just war theory takes issue with the gendered nature of just war. Sjoberg, one of the most notable feminist critics, argues that, “just war is a discourse rather than a moral framework.” This claim comes from the idea that just war theory is not stringent enough in its criteria to be a moral framework, and is either not clear or too lenient in considering force as a last resort. As a result war becomes too easy under just war theory, and when considering the cost of war civilian losses tend to be minimized while military gains are given disproportionate weight. This also leads in to the feminist critique of the non-combatant immunity (NCI) principle. Since wars are fought to protect the “innocent”, typically depicted as women and children, it follows that a war can only be won by attacking another group’s women and children. Instead of NCI, empathetic war fighting is proposed wherein “who the party might hit” is more important than “who the party intends to shoot at.” Though the feminist critique does pose some interesting questions to just war theory, I will show that just war theory remains a useful framework for evaluating the morality of war, and in this case of counterterrorism.
Summary of Chapters
INTRODUCTION: Establishes Just War Theory as the analytical lens for evaluating post-9/11 U.S. counterterrorism and defines the operational scope of terrorism and counter-measures.
CHAPTER 1: JUST WAR THEORY: Outlines the core criteria of jus ad bellum and jus in bello, while acknowledging academic critiques, particularly from a feminist perspective.
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW: Critically engages with existing scholarship regarding domestic surveillance, the Iraq War, torture, and automated warfare.
CHAPTER 3: COUNTERTERRORISM METHODS: Examines specific tactics like detention, interrogation, surveillance, and targeted killing, evaluating them against moral standards.
CHAPTER 4: U.S DOMESTIC COUNTERTERRORISM: Investigates domestic programs such as the PATRIOT Act and NDAA, arguing that their violation of civil liberties lacks sufficient justificatory success.
CHAPTER 5: U.S COUNTERTERRORISM IN THE MIDDLE EAST: Analyzes foreign interventions and the use of drones, concluding that these have often been counterproductive and morally problematic.
CONCLUSION: Synthesizes the findings, asserting that most U.S. counterterrorism policies since 9/11 have violated moral principles without achieving the necessary success to justify those breaches.
Keywords
Just War Theory, Counterterrorism, Jus ad bellum, Jus in bello, U.S. Foreign Policy, Domestic Surveillance, PATRIOT Act, NDAA, Torture, Drone Warfare, Non-combatant Immunity, National Security, Ethics, Terrorism, Civil Liberties
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper examines the moral legitimacy of U.S. counterterrorism strategies enacted after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks by applying the principles of Just War Theory.
Which specific ethical framework is utilized?
The author employs Just War Theory, specifically focusing on the components of "jus ad bellum" (right to go to war) and "jus in bello" (conduct during war).
What is the author's primary conclusion regarding U.S. counterterrorism?
The author concludes that most policies have consistently violated moral principles and remain unjustifiable because they fail to demonstrate a high likelihood of success in preventing terrorism.
Which methods of counterterrorism are analyzed in this study?
The study covers domestic surveillance, indefinite detention (NDAA), enhanced interrogation (torture), the Iraq War, and targeted killing via drone warfare.
What role does "success" play in the author's moral evaluation?
The author argues that even if a policy involves moral trade-offs, it can only be considered "morally permissible" if it provides a substantial and verifiable chance of success in preventing future attacks.
What are the primary keywords associated with this document?
Key terms include Just War Theory, counterterrorism, civil liberties, drone warfare, torture, and national security.
Does the author distinguish between domestic and foreign counterterrorism?
Yes, the document provides separate case studies for domestic policies—such as the PATRIOT Act and community integration—and foreign efforts, including the Iraq War and drone strikes.
How does the author address the "ticking bomb" scenario regarding torture?
The author highlights that while the "ticking bomb" is often used to justify torture, it is largely considered a myth, as torture rarely produces reliable information and often generates false confessions.
Why are drone strikes criticized in the document?
Drone strikes are criticized for violating non-combatant immunity (NCI), their lack of clear success in reducing insurgent violence, and for lowering the political threshold for engaging in warfare.
- Arbeit zitieren
- James Kaminski (Autor:in), 2015, The Morality of Counterterrorism. A Just War Theory Analysis of U.S Counterterrorism after 9/11, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/301876
