Introduction
Terrorism is defined as the use of illegal force against either a person or property for the purpose of intimidating them or a government, civilians or any division of a population for either political or social objectives. Terrorism usually incites war either within a nation or between nations. Nations have designated strategies to counter terrorist activities. There is a war on terrorism. (Cook, 2004)
Discussion
Strategies
The United States has come up with its counter-terrorist strategy called “War on Terrorism”. Its plans have been termed as warfare instead of being law enforcement. The War on Terrorism is a real war that constitutes of elements of conventional war. War on Terrorism is not directed at states but rather at individuals and any groups of people who undertake terrorism as a way of attaining their political objectives or other goals. The United States administration is very determined to eradicate terrorism, it has indicated that the War on Terrorism will not come to an end unless terrorism is ultimately eradicated. Since War on Terrorism is not like any other war concerned with crime, poverty, drugs or conventional war it raises questions of how it should be carried out. The War on Terrorism uses both warfare and law enforcement measures in its strategy. For instance, patriot Act is a measure which has been undertaken to control crime in the United States so as to prevent terrorist acts in the homeland, the administration has carried out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that use conventional military forces and strategies. (Cook, 2004)
Moral Principles
There are established moral and legal traditions which are used to solve metaphorical wars are now used to conform to the unforetold feature of War on Terrorism. The just war tradition uses two different moral analysis of using military power. Jus ad Bellum is the first one which translates to a right towards war. It establishes what military and political set of situations would lead to the need of a response from the military. Jus ad Bellum looks at “just cause” and tries to establish if using force will address a certain wrong and if there are chances of success. It is usually undertaken as the last resort. The second is known as jus in Bello which translates to conducting military operations in the right manner. The main notion here is to use force against those who are legally and morally to blame for an attack, rather than intentionally against others and a significant balance between the destruction caused while responding to an attack and the military worth of the targets ruined. (Cook, 2004)
Response to War and Terrorism
The nature and scope of the attacks by terrorists on the United States need a military reaction. Significant questions about jus ad Bellum are linked to other questions that just war tradition needs a person to ask concerning the capability to react effectively to attacks with the military force that will actually respond to the actual attackers as well as to the wrong done. Jus in Bello facilitates success in attacks made on the objects of military and persons but with minimal damage to objects and persons who are innocent. (Steinhoff, 2007)
Conclusion
The discussion has brought up various moral arguments on how counter-terrorist measures should be carried out. There are established morals and traditions which regulate how terrorists and terrorist attacks should be responded to and what strategy to be employed when responding to them. Therefore, War on Terrorism is perceived to be eviler than the terrorism itself. (Cook, 2004)
References
Cook, M. (2004). The moral warrior. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Steinhoff, U. (2007). On the ethics of war and terrorism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
