Matthew Yglesias' argument against responding to international terrorism in the manners and metaphors of war makes sense to me. He writes that in approaching terrorism within the framework of war, "you partake of way too much of the terrorists’ narrative about themselves." He continues:
It’s their conceit, after all, that blowing up a bomb in a train station and killing a few hundred random commuters is an act of war. And war is a socially sanctioned form of activity, generally held to be a legally and morally acceptable framework in which to kill people. What we want to say, however, is that this sporadic commuter-killing isn’t a kind of war, it’s an act of murder. To be sure, not an ordinary murder—a mass murder—but nonetheless murder. It’s true that if al-Qaeda were something like the "blowing up train stations" arm of a major country with which we were otherwise at war, it might make the most sense to think of al-Qaeda as fitting in with spies and saboteurs; criminal adjuncts to a warrior enterprise.I suppose if we don't think of ourselves as at war with terrorists, then we might be less likely to go to war against countries under the banner of that war. That would be a good thing. I suppose as well that this debate about language would be less of an issue if we didn't generally hold war to be a legally and morally acceptable framework in which to kill people. That would be a good thing too. (VN)
8 profound comments:
This also makes sense to me, at least in terms of using terminology that really fits the act. However, we have limited choices when thinking about how to respond to such acts. The first is to not respond at all, which is unacceptable politically. Responding to them as large criminal acts is out of the question. The perpetrators are outside of any policing jurisdiction that our own law enforcement enjoys, and the police forces of many of the sponsoring countries are not likely to be cooperative in a conventional police response. Many of these terrorist organizations are more organized and better armed than a conventional law enforcement bureau, and the complexities of coordinating multiple law enforcement efforts across several countries are daunting to say the least. In the absence of a strongly armed and truly international policing agency (something which I'd rather not see existing in the first place), treating terrorist acts as criminal acts in the conventional sense is probably impossible. The third extra-military response is to use our intelligence services to go after them in a covert way. We do this as part of our response now (eg Predator drone strikes, extraordinary rendition, etc.), and it is obviously highly controversial politically. Internationally, it is not really acceptable to base one's counter-terrorism efforts solely on covert efforts such as assassination and kidnapping, although paradoxically, this is probably th emost effective way of bringing people to "justice". War is, as the article states, a comparatively acceptable way for states to resolve their diputes, especially when diplomatic means are absent or particularly undesirable (as negotiating with Al Quaeda would be. Thus war, though not really suited as a response to terrorist acts, may be seen as the most socially and politically acceptable response nonetheless. It certainly provides a framework for legitimizing the more practically effective but politically not as palatable covert responses. The OSS certainly did engage in a lot of dirty tricks during WWII that would not have been considered acceptable during peacetime. I would argue that the framework of war is politically necessary to freely pursue the covert intelligence activities that actually do more to capture the terrorists than direct military action could.
There is also the use of war to destabilize and destroy the regimes of host states that provide succor to the terrorist movement.
-Mike Vallor
Good Evening,
In general, I agree with the good doctor's comments above. I would like to explore another aspect.
Justice and the rule of law exist in large part to protect the innocent. Where it is possible to stop a criminal, determine all facts in a sober and unbiased manner then that should be (and is) the role of the criminal justice system.
However, criminal organizations that inspire their members to commit suicide in order to further their causes, have the support (de facto and/or de jure) of sovereign nations, and threaten to recruit thousands to their cause are too dangerous to try to stop using the criminal justice system.
The first requirement here is that the method stops the bloodshed of innocents. As such, common law has always held that self defense using deadly force is justifiable when faced with imminent attack. Also, defense of another from an aggressor is also legal - even if it means the death of the attacker without due process.
While war against a non-governmental organization may not be the best terminology, it does have the benefit of clarifying a few salient points: 1) we will not wait for a crime to be committed. 2) we will use overwhelming deadly force. 3) we recognize that others may be hurt and/or killed by our actions, but feel it necessary as a matter of our self-defense. 4) if other states protect the organization in question, those states are committing an act of war in our eyes.
Are these good things? NO! But the alternative of allowing ever more deadly attacks would be worse.
John Weems
But the alternative of allowing ever more deadly attacks would be worse.
Mark 8:36 For what does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and forfeit his soul?
Thank you for the comments, Gentlemen. Yglesias acknowledges, and I agree, that terrorism requires a response beyond traditional law enforcement, though he doesn’t see war as the suitable means of response. I am of the opinion that while just wars are theoretically possible, meeting their criteria is a practical impossibility given some contemporary circumstances.
Rodak, I only discussed the cessation of violence against innocents. This is a legitimate role of goverments... Romans 13:4 "for he" (the ruler) "is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer."
Anonymous--
I think we are to understand that "the ruler" of whom Paul is speaking is an agent of the Roman Empire, a pagan, and, unlike the disciples of Christ, outside of God's law.
Jesus taught "render unto Caesar" and "my kingdom is not of this world." I.e.--the Romans, and all the worldly, will do as the worldly do. This does not give the Christian licence to do that thing, too. We are to be "in the world," but not "of the world." I would say that participating in war is being "of the world," in spades. War is always, and only, either killing to protect material goods, or killing to wrest material goods away from the "enemy." Any and all philosophical abstractions, such as "freedom" and "liberty," bandied about in order to make war seem morally licit, are just so much infernal sophistry.
November 18, 2009 6:12 AM
To add to what I wrote above, the OT has several examples of God using pagan potentates to punish misbehaving Hebrews. That "the ruler" in Romans 13 is cited as God's arm of vengeance against the wicked is, therefore, not out of the ordinary, scripturally-speaking.
Paul does seem, however, to be acting as an appeaser here, to a worldly power that can only be seen as evil. He is again attempting to be "all things to all men." One hesitates to use a label like "collaborator" here, given about whom we're talking, but the word fits pretty well. It is obvious that Paul is trying to avoid trouble with the authorities, probably in the service of the security of his flock.
But it is not one of Paul's better moments. When Paul's words seem to be in contradiction to those of Jesus, I go with the Latter, every time.
Post a Comment