Ethical Issues Created by the “War on Terrorism”, Essay Example

The war on terror presents many ethical challenges to all participants. The main challenge is that terrorists fight through convictions that make conventional rules of engagements very inapplicable. Their rules of engagement are shroud in mystery, making terrorists difficult to differentiate from criminals. Additionally, some people are involved in terror directly and are therefore legitimate targets while others are indirectly involved and are therefore illegitimate targets. For this reason, the war on terror must involve a certain degree of ethical violations if it is to be won. Choice of weapons used during the fight against terrorism is the main issue that raises ethical controversies. Other ethical concerns include racial profiling, definition of victory in the war against terrorism, identification of terrorists,

The collateral damage caused by use of highly “effective” modern weapons by the U.S, apart from causing widespread uproar, breeds future terrorists who have no qualms about carrying out devastating suicide attacks. Countries that are involved in the war on terror led by the U.S, often shrug off this criticism. They mostly do this by asserting that they have to fight terror as long as terror has been pitied against them.

The threat caused by terrorists presents a tricky scenario where traditional war methods are not applicable. When faced with a threat of a ballistic missile attack, the traditional confrontational methods where tanks confront tanks and warplanes confront warplanes do not apply. In other words, there is no clearly defined front where opposing armies meet. The countries involved in the counterterrorism war have to use all means, ethical or not, to counter perceived terrorist threats.

Some of the counterterrorism measures used by the U.S involve profiling approaches. People may be profiled according to their color, geographical or religious background. This is unethical. It is also unethical to detain war prisoners for years without trial. A good example of this scenario is the Guantanamo Bay Camp. Many Iraqis were detained in his camp for many months without trial in the wake of the U.S-led war on terror that resulted in the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Lack of accountability by one of the warring (the terrorist) is a major cause of impunity and commission of war crimes. In conventional cases, the participants in a war are countries who are bound by international treaties. The treaties define the rules of engagement that ensure that unethical practices are avoided by both sides. Since terrorists can be all over the world, and indeed are, the international treaties suddenly seem irrelevant.  Once one side stops fighting a just war in favor of unorthodox means, the other side has no option but to follow suit in pursuit of dominance and victory.

Perhaps the most fundamental ethical question relating to the war on terrorism is about the definition of victory. In order for victory in this war to be understood, the rationale of terrorists has to be considered. Currently, it seems that little is known about the terrorists’ demands that would have to be met in order for the war to come to a close. Alternatively, the demands that are often made often seem impractical and unrealistic. There is no guarantee that if the demands are met, the terrorist leaders will dismantle the global terror network that they have established. (Zalman & Jonathan, 2009)

Yadlin (2004) believes that a new set of rules on counterterrorism war are needed. Fighting a war that has no ethical rules to guide everyday engagements is not a good thing. It presents countries with opportunities of acting unethically by killing civilians, detaining war prisoners and suspected terrorists and violating territorial integrity of states believed to be supporting and financing terrorism. The Bush administration was accused of acting unethically between 2003 and 2008 during the war on terror, with special emphasis being put on the flag-ship Iraq’s overthrowing of Saddam’s government.

When citizens get killed after finding themselves sandwiched between warring sides, the collateral damage caused is often regrettable and it becomes a subject of ethical debates all over the world. In most cases, these debates die out without consensus being reached on how best to avoid a similar situation in the future (Zalman & Jonathan, 2009). Countries leading the war on terrorism always blame terrorists of hiding behind innocent civilians. Once civilian deaths occur, the terrorists use them as a physiological tool for winning terror recruits to fight on their side.

The question of identifying terrorists is a challenging one, which, it seems, can never be won using purely ethical means, despite perennial claims to the contrary. Drawing the line between potential terrorists and active terrorists is always a challenge without use of racial and religious profiling, which are unethical practices. The covert argument that is always expressed by proponents of these unethical measures is that since membership to a religious group that supports terrorists’ ideologies, for example, means going to certain places of worship where persuasion into engagement in terrorist activities is highly likely, people belonging to that religion should be perceived as terrorist threats.

An Evaluation of the U.S Approach to Ethical Issues during “War on Terrorism” since September 11, 2001

Forman, et al, 2002, observes that the U.S has always expressed feelings of ambivalence towards international engagements and commitments since the September 11, 2001 attacks. The country has been very selective in any international commitments that she gets into. These changes coincide with changes in the country’s foreign policy. After the September 11^th attacks, the U.S prioritized on relations with countries which had the will and the power to engage in anti-terrorism activities. Examples of such countries include Britain, Canada and Australia.

The manner in which the United States handled Al Qaeda terrorists has been the subject of widespread international criticism. Ethical concerns were raised on why the suspects were detained for many years and were never allowed to answer to terrorism charges. The U.S has repeatedly claimed that these unethical decisions were made in the interest of the citizens of countries that were faced with a threat of terrorist activities, which the detained terrorism suspects were believed to be capable of masterminding.

According to pacifists, it is always unethical to cause death, despite the circumstances surrounding the death. In the Iraq Invasion, the U.S military had to kill many innocent civilians. The deaths caused a worldwide uproar. It is arguably the biggest criticism that the U.S has received from the international community in recent times. The criticism was compounded by the fact the purported Iraq weapons of mass destruction, which the Bush administration feared might fall into terrorists’ hands, were never found. The war in Iraq therefore lacked any justification and was therefore unethical.

When the U.S ordered Afghanistan to cooperate in apprehending the Al Qaeda terrorists who were behind the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Taliban-led government refused to do so and it was invaded and toppled. This was the first time in the post-modern time when a sub-state organization resulted in a government being overthrown. There seemed to be an international consensus that it was unethical to disregard a country’s sovereignty in the way that the U.S did in Afghanistan (Ignatieff, 2004). As if that was not enough, the country did it yet again in 2003, in Iraq.

Conclusion

The issue of war on terrorism is a very challenging one. It is difficult to determine whether humanitarian concerns or vested national interests account for military invasions during the war on terror. In most cases, the motivation is derived from a combination of both factors. Ethical concerns will always arise whenever military engagements targeted at global terrorism are concerned. The nature of terrorism therefore demands that certain ethical misdeeds are inevitable.

References

Forman, S. et al. (2002). Multilateralism and U.S. Foreign Policy: Ambivalent Engagement. New York: Routledge.

Ignatieff, M, (2004). The Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in the Age of Terror. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Yadlin, A. (2004). Ethical Dilemmas in Fighting Terrorism. Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs 4(8) p. 1-5

Zalman, A. & Jonathan, C. (2009). The Global War on Terror: A Narrative in Need of a Rewrite. Ethics & International Affairs 23(2) p. 5-10.