Return to "What I Think...The Ethics of Terrorism
I was reading up on the laws of armed conflict and have come to the conclusion that terrorism is an immoral means of achieving an end. Others may disagree, saying "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Before you start framing a tart response, bear with me as I explain my reasoning.
For those of you unfamiliar with these laws, allow me to give you a brief overview:
International law and the Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) do not exhist to make war more palatable. Instead, they were instituted over the years, to ensure that war does as little unintended harm as possible, and that once the war is over, an equitable peace may be put in place. The three main considerations of LOAC are:
- Military Necessity
- Proportionality
and
- Chivalry
Military necessity means targeting objects or persons which legitimately provide military advantage to our forces. Examples are any form of military warfighting equipment or munitions, enemy troops, or support equipment for combatant members.
There is an important distinction made between "combatants" and "noncombatants." Combatants wear a recognizable uniform of some kind, carry their arms openly, are led by some sort of authority which authorizes them to engage in war-fighting activity and who themselves do not violate the law of war.
Noncombatants are individuals who do not fit into this category. Example: civilians or medical personnel who do not directly engage the enemy are 2 kinds of noncombatant. A third category is made up of individuals who engage in combat activity even though they are not authorized to do so -- illegal combatants.
Just as people are combatants or noncombatants, certain types of structure may recieve "noncombatant" status, and will not be attacked unless it cannot be avoided. Hospitals, museums, and historical sites are just three examples of such protected sites. Another consideration is the potential for widespread environmental damage.
Proportionality states that only the amount of force necessary to neutralize a legitimate military target may be employed, and no more. The Air Force applies this principle in the types of weapons selected for specific missions. For example, to destroy a depot containing military equipment it may be proportional to implement conventional 500-pound bombs. It would probably not be proportional to utilize large scale nuclear weapons that would have the collateral effect of killing thousands of civilians.
Proportionality also applies to whether the destruction of a legitimate military target will result in harm to noncombatant persons or structures. A lone tank in an open meadow might be attacked with large area-of-effect weapons, while one parked near an apartment building might be targeted with precision munitions or even left alone, if it were not a perceived threat. Similarly, destroying A hydroelectric dam that provided power to the enemy's war industries might also remove power to hospitals or cause widespread flooding. The damage to the military target must be weighed against the damage to the noncombatants.
Chivalry means that no combat activity may be conducted in a treacherous manner or with the intent to deceive the enemy regarding the true nature of an operation. The element of surprise may be employed, but not by treacherous means. The most important application of this principle is in the proper use of internationally recognized symbols to designate noncombat activities or nonmilitary resources.
For example, the red cross displayed on aircraft, vehicles or structures indicates that the resource is being utilized as part of an exclusively medical mission. Thus, they cannot be targeted. Likewise, the use of the white flag to indicate surrender is also an internationally recognized symbol. The use of these symbols must be carefully managed by our forces. The improper use of any of them constitutes a grave violation of informational law and may compromise the legitimate use of these protections.
Another example of chivalry is the proper declaration that a state of war exists between the attacking power and the defender. It is a violation of international law to attack without either declaring war or issuing an ultimatum that will result in a state of war if the conditions are not met.
No war is "good", but the only ethical reason to wage war is to bring it to a swift conclusion with a minimum of casualties on both sides, and so an equitable peace may be established. Ethical rules designating who can or cannot be shot at, and how much force is appropriate, are required to prevent unnecessary suffering and enable the reestablishment of peace once hostilities end.
Terrorism denies this. Instead, it postulates that the more outrageous its actions, the better. It's primary aim is to instill terror. It specifically ignores the principles of proportionality, and pays only lip service to chivalry, if it considers it at all. Terrorism assumes that the victims of its attacks will look upon their own government as being somehow responsible for the attacks and insist it capitulate to terrorists' demands. It barely considers that the victims will view the terrorists as the enemy and demand their government do everything in its power to bring them to justice. Terrorism ignores the fact that if they succeed, they still must somehow overcome the ill will they cultivated within the surviving victims. They prosecute their "war" in such a way that it is almost impossible to institute an equitable peace if they ever do reach their goals.
Secondly, few (if any) terrorist organizations are sovereign governments. They are not internationally recognized as having the authority to lawfully declare war, levy taxes, make treaties, or perform any other function of a sovereign state. Terrorist organizations backed by sovereign states do not receive such backing because the sponsor nation wishes to openly declare support for the aims of the group, but rather, because this allows that sovereign state to circumvent the international laws of warfare without appearing to be doing so.
Terrorists do not adhere to any recognized laws of warfare except those of expediency. They use methods and tactics specifically designed to outrage and instill terror. They seek to coerce, rather than convince. Few rational people would recognize these methods as ethical.
Injustice must be confronted by ethical means. To add injustice to injustice does not somehow create justice. It simply creates more injustice. The dialogue between nations includes many levels of negotiation, from informal exchanges of information, treaties, international agreements, up to and including warfare, the diplomatic tool of last resort. The dialogue of the terrorist is that of a mugger with a gun:
"GIVE ME WHAT I WANT OR I WILL KILL YOU!"
Some sources I consulted when putting this together are:
The Avalon Project at the Yale Law School: The Laws of War
An Interactive Guide to the Laws of Armed Conflict and the Rules of Engagement