Running Head: MHE505 MODULE 1 – CASE ASSIGNMENT

Question 1:

Global definitions of terrorism are presented in the background reading. Provide a critique of these definitions. What would you propose as a global definition of terrorism?
|To Define Terrorism |
|Debate over what constitutes a terrorist or a terrorist assault occurs with each mass violent attack. In remarks to the Center for |
|International Policy in Washington DC, on November 2001, former Ambassador Keeley (2002) discussed the necessity to define |
|terrorism, and illustrated the challenge of constructing a definition that can be applied steadily. (Keeley, 2002) Thirteen years |
|later six different U.S. government agencies have differing definition of Terrorism, and there is no consensus on a definition. |
| |
|Critique of Definitions of Terrorism |
|Although the wording used in the within the definitions varies, there are key words each of the agencies emphasize. The U.S. Code |
|Of Federal Regulation does not distinguish between a government and sub national group who uses terrorism as a method. United |
|States Code Title 22, Chapter 38 and the U.S. National Security Strategy does not mention or required a motive of the attackers, |
|and the U.S. Department of Defense does not identify the targeting of noncombatants as a factor. Title 18 of the United States |
|Code establishes am international definition of international terrorism that includes territories outside the United States such as|
|embassies and military bases. This definition encompasses key terms one sees in the other definitions, but does not clarify the |
|attacker as government or a sub national group. |
| |
|Proposed Global Definition of Terrorism |
|Terrorism is used to create and or exploit fear with the use of violence or threat of violence. This fear is possible because |
|terrorism is random, but at the same time systematic. Even though individuals may not be personally targeted, these attacks are |
|well planned, have a political purpose. The political component is an important piece of the puzzle when analyzing attacks. Have |
|one global definition may enable applying the definition consistently domestically as well as globally. Combining elements from the|
|USA Patriot Act and Title 18 of the United States Code may provide a well-rounded definition of terrorism. |
|“The following definition is applied to domestic or international violence or acts by sub-national group(s) or clandestine agents |
|that involve violent acts or any act dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of |
|any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; appear |
|premeditated to intimidate or coerce a civilian population to influence the policy or conduct of a government by intimidation or |
|coercion.” |
| |
| |
| |
| |

Question 2:
International law has established limits on warfare, referred to as the "just war" theory. Describe these limitations. Do you agree or disagree that the "Just War" theory should be reconceptualized? Explain.

|Just War theory |
|Just war theory is certainly not a new concept, but it did re-emerge in light of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and with military|
|leaders renewed the importance of winning the hearts and minds are a must during conflict. As a result just war theory has |
|resurfaced. The theory is a framework made up of principles that place limits on warfare. It assists with the ethical dilemma of |
|justifying going to war and establish a structure to guide ones activity during the course of the ware. Just war theory is broken |
|down into two categories; Jus ad bellum the justification for going to war, and Jus in bello in the means by which one fights in |
|war. |
| |
|Principles of Just War Theory |
|A number of principles govern just war theory depending on the theorist. As Toner (2010) points out there is a variation of |
|principles, but the four theorists he surveyed have commonality within their set of guidelines. There are six criteria that must |
|be met for jus ad bellum. Just cause is where a government has the right to defend itself and its citizens. Right intention refers|
|to a government matching its motives for going to war to stop the aggression, but not retaliation. The third criterion is there |
|must be a public declaration by a proper authority. In the United States the President declares war, but must be approved by |
|Congress who are suppose to represent the will of the people. Going to war must be a last resort. Sanctions, withdrawing financial|
|aide, or blocking assets is typically used as negotiation tactics to prevent the need to go to war. A war must be winnable, so |
|probability of success needs to evaluated and reasonable to justify going to war. |
|There are three principles that must be met to guide conduct during war, jus un bello, that must be met during the course of the |
|conflict. The ratio of civilians to combatants killed or injured cannot be lopsided. A study of losses and cost to benefit |
|analysis for both sides should be determined. Non-combat and combat targets need to be indentified so there is discrimination |
|between legitimate and illegitimate targets. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
|Reconceptualize Just War Theory? |
|As Akkerman (2009) points out the traditional just war theory is challenged with the notion that military conflict has and |
|continues to morph since the end of the cold war. The continued technological advances of weapons enable one to wage war or launch |
|military operations far from the front lines. Whether using drones, stealth aircraft, or satellites this technology has the power |
|to create more destruction with enhanced accuracy. |
|The combatant is no longer so simple to differentiate from non-combatants. Engaging in warfare with a group who are willing to |
|target mainly civilians including their own people, and use women and children as weapon vehicles presents exceptional challenges. |
|Non-state armed forces have replaced sovereign state militaries, are often privately financed from criminal means. To fight |
|terrorism, preemptive strikes as an effort to prevent a terrorist attack against civilians is advantageous instead of waiting for |
|an event to take place. The state of the country after warfare must be taken into consideration if winning the war on terrorism is|
|going to be possible. |
|In order to meet these challenges just war theory it is reasonable to consider transforming just war theory that will accommodate |
|the dynamic present-day warfare. Johnson (2008) emphasizes the need to include jus post bellum into the framework of just war |
|theory. Fighting insurgents while figuring out how to build a nations with such blurred lines between combatants and |
|non-combatants is new to the U.S. Military. Just war theory requires a structure permitting it to be applied in the ever-changing |
|combat theater, and provides a roadmap establishing goals and a way forward to rebuilding the government supported y the |
|population. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

Question 3:
Evaluate whether the recent military action in Afghanistan meets the traditional criteria of "Just War."

| |
|Just War in Afghanistan? |
|The United States war in Afghanistan did meet some, but not all just war theory criteria for going to war. The U.S. was attacked |
|on its own soil, civilians were the main targets with the goal of killing as many as possible, and it has the obligation to defend |
|its population. Given the history of attacks and intelligence at the time, it was reasonable to engage in a preemptive strike. |
|The U.S. had the right intention of taking out the terrorist to prevent future attacks, while attempting to discriminate between |
|non-combatants and combatants, but this was not always successful. Considering the war is in its 14th year, the probability of |
|success was not realistic, and other avenues to hold the terrorist accountable were not entertained. Many unfortunate incidences |
|and interrogation techniques during the war shined a poor light on the United States. Whether or not the U.S. Government |
|sanctioned certain acts did not affect public or other governments’ criticism of such acts. Whether it was due to inadequate |
|intelligence poor execution, or poor analysis of the cost benefits for both sides, proportionality was not met. As Waltzer (2009) |
|points out, there is collateral damage during warfare, but it does not change the fact emotions run high when civilians are killed |
|in combat, and is condemned. |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |

REFERENCES
|Akkerman, T. (2009). New Wars, New Morality. Acta Polictica, 44, 74-86. |
|Johnson, R. (2008). Jus Post Bellum and Counterinsurgency. Journal of Military Ethics, 7(3), 215-230. |
|Keeley, R. V. (2002). Trying to Define Terrorism. Middle East Policy, 9(1), 33-39. |
|Toner, C. (2010). The Logical Structure of Just War Theory. J Ethics, 14, 81-102. doi:10.1007/s10892-010-9072-0 |
|Waltzer, M. (2009). Responsibility and proportionality in state and nonstate wars. , , . Retrieved April 12, 2014, from Proquest |
|(1737399101). |