September 11, 2001 will be a day that none of us forget for as long as we live. It is a day that each of us will remember exactly what we were doing when we heard the news reports. Hijacked planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, another one into the Pentagon and a forth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania, failing to reach its intended target because of heroic passengers. With nearly 3,000 civilians murdered, the United States began the “War on Terror” that targeted organizations designated as terrorist and those regimes accused of supporting them. The “War on Terror” took the fight to the mountains of Afghanistan and the deserts of Iraq. The Theory of Just War is an ethical look to help determine whether the use of armed forces is justified or unjustified. This Theory is guided by three sets of criteria: the right to go war (jus ad bellum), the rules of engagement of war (jus in bello) and justice after war (jus post bellum). While these wars have been surrounded with controversy and claims of being unjust, the “War on Terror” is a just war that does not exceed the moral boundaries set in the Just War Theory and today's society?
The first criterion for a just war is the right to go to war. Is there a just cause? Will war be declared by a competent authority? Has all other options for peace been exhausted? What are the chances for success? Before the dust for the fallen towers settled and while eighty-six other countries mourned the loss of loved ones that were indiscriminately killed by Al Qaeda operatives, leaders around the globe heeded their citizens’ call to war, forming a coalition against terrorists. President George Bush stated “our 'war on terror' begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated" (Wikipedia.org, 2012). Congress approved a joint resolution to allowed President Bush to start the War on Terror in order to protect the United States from further terrorist attacks.
The war in Afghanistan meant to find Osama Bin Laden and bring him to justice along with other Al Qaeda members responsible for these terrorists’ attacks against the U.S. Since Al Qaeda was based in Afghanistan and the Taliban regime supported them, this war was also meant to remove the regime and put an end the Al Qaeda entity in Afghanistan. There have been an increased number of casualties due to conflicts engendered by the fraud of the 2009 presidential election in Afghanistan. Attempts to persuade the Taliban to leave Afghanistan failed and it was decided the only way to stop the growth and spread of Al Qaeda and put an end to the Taliban Regime was to go to war to eliminate both groups.
Iraq has been a great threat to our national security and to its allies that is why when we heard that they might have developed and possessed weapon of mass destruction. We were so determined one way or another to put a stop to that. That country has used poison gas against Iran and also on its own people. Research has shown that Iraq sponsors terrorism because some of its weapons of mass destruction have been used by tyrants to kill many innocent people. Iraq has violated repeatedly many UN Security Council resolutions breaking international laws and failing to allow UN inspectors into the country to investigate these violations proved that there was no other choice but war. Even though Iraq has not been a direct threat to US, it was important to make sure that we stop their production of mass destruction weapons and sharing with terrorist organizations that could attack the U.S. or our allies. It was also important that the dictatorship regime should be replaced and to implement democracy and the only sure way for us to make it happen and eliminate any threat present was to declare war to Iraq.
The only criteria that was difficult to show a just war is the probability of success. We would not be fighting a normal war nor be conducted on a normal battlefield. There is also the challenge of determining friend from foe because of the civilian environment. However, despite the fact it could be a long war; the probability for success was great. In fact, there has not been another attack on the U.S. since the War on Terror began. Intelligence gathered has helped provide information to eliminate terrorist leader and stop additional attacks. Preventing further attacks was the reason the war on terror started and thus proving the wars were just.
The battlefields for the War on Terror as well as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are not your typical battlefields. Gone are the days where armies would line up against each other and the strongest, best equipped army survived. These wars would all test the principles of “Jus in Bello”, the second criteria for a Just War and describes how militaries are should act during a war. Distinctions, proportionality, military necessity, fair treatment of prisoners of war and not using weapons or methods that are considered “evil” are the principles of “Jus in Bello” (Wikipedia.org, 2012). When Al Qaeda attacked the United States on September 11th, they completely disregarded these rules when they deliberately attacked civilians and civilian buildings as well as continuing their attacks on civilians with suicide bombers instead of attacking military combatants. The rules of distinction prohibit purposely attacking civilians.
The United States has made the distinction to find and attack Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives during the course of the war on terror and during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S. has specifically worked to ensure all aspects of Jus in Bello are followed by using some of the most advanced weapons systems available. The Tomahawk cruise missiles and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM) are smart weapons that are guided to their target by GPS coordinates that can be changed in flight. During Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, The U.S. made the distinction that mosques were not targets of the war and that any weapons used surrounding mosques would do minimal damage if any to the mosque. In one incident the U.S. dropped 500 pound bombs on Al Qaeda insurgents near the wall surrounding a mosque but causing no damage to the mosque (CNN.com, 2004). This action follows the rules of distinction and proportionality as well as military necessity. Despite the fact that the mosque was being misused to conduct military operations, the decision was made to “not attack the mosque itself even though it was a lawful military target” (CNN.com, 2004).
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), or drones, have also aided the War on Terror to target Top Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein, his sons and other leaders in Iraq. Over seventy Al Qaeda and Taliban commanders in Afghanistan have been killed by drones. These attacks by drones distinctly identified the targets and allowed the United States to limit collateral damage to command centers being used by these leaders. Controversy has surrounded the drone program though as the number of drone attacks have raised. The main issue is the death of civilians by drone attacks because of false identification. However, since 2006 drones have been used to kill 2,431 Al Qaeda and Taliban operatives while limiting civilian deaths to 139 (Roggio & Mayer, 2012). The value that drones have in a war limits casualties for allied forces and allows leaders, to include the President himself, to pick and choose high value targets to attack (Becker & Shane, 2012).
Another issue facing the use of drones was the targeted killing of U.S. born turned al-Qaida member Anwar al-Awlaki (Epatko, 2011). This attack raises the legal question as to whether or not al-Awlaki’s rights were violated (Epatko, 2011). Despite critics’ complaints, “the State Department’s top lawyer, Harold Koh, has argued that the U.S. may only act out of clear self-defense, targeting people actively plotting to hit us and whose host nations can’t or won’t do the job for us (Crowley, 2011). Targeting al-Awlaki was an act of self-defense and was only done in order to save the lives of other Americans.
One of the most controversial issues for the U.S. during the War on Terror was the questionable treatment of enemy prisoners. Photos showing the humiliation and abuse of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by U.S. military personnel violated society’s moral and ethical laws and values. The torture and abuse of detainees were not just in Iraq but also in Afghanistan and also Cuba (Adam, 2006). Were these actions “just”, no they were not “just” but those that committed these crimes were charged, convicted, and sent to prison (MARTINFROST). Cases like these were not normal and the United States did treat prisoners morally and ethically right. In fact, one soldier, Spc. Joseph Darby, reported the abuse because “It violated everything I personally believed in and all I'd been taught about the rules of war" (Beliefnet.com). Additionally, Col. David E. Quantock, was assigned as the new commander at Abu Ghraib Prison and immediately corrected the improper treatment of prisoners by conducting refresher training on the Geneva Convention Law of Land Warfare, interrogation procedures, and have actively incorporated lessons learned into our current operations to ensure that our Soldiers are as prepared as possible to conduct this demanding mission – and also to ensure all detainees are treated with dignity, respect, and humanity” (Martin, 2007). These abuses also led to the ARMY “banning torture and degrading treatment of prisoners” and this instruction applies to all branches of the U.S. military (CBSNEWS.com).
The last criteria for Jus in Bello are that unlawful or “evil” weapons are not used. Nuclear weapons and biological weapons were not used during any of these wars. If any would have been used, it would have changed the face of the war because of the world’s view on the use of these weapons. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, Al Qaeda has used improvised explosive devices (IEDs) to injure and kill U.S. forces as well as civilians. These weapons would be described as “evil” because they target civilians instead of just military targets. Coalition forces have worked to disarm IEDs to prevent causalities to both military and civilian personnel.
Post war justice or jus post bellum is the third stage of a war and is often overlooked. We have rules in accordance with the Geneva Convention for the other two phases of war, jus ad bellum and jus in bellum but nothing really to regulate the ending. There should be guidance for ethical, moral, political and legal restraint for both the winner and looser of war. We need to develop clear post war principles for our modern wars by a new Geneva Convention where they can be negotiated and drafted internationally (Dr. Brian Orend 2011).
When it comes to the War on Terror, it is tough to see an ethical side of it because terrorism itself is the opposite of ethical. The United States defines terrorism, in Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), by “means premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets…” which is stating that terrorists fight and attack those that are not combat targets: civilians (CIA 2012). The tough part about fighting the War on Terror is that the opposition is not fighting ethically them. This means that for the United States to end the War on Terror, doing it ethically is not going to be a simple task.
The phrase “War on Terror” is the term adopted by most Americans that describes the ongoing military campaign led by the United States, UK, and their allies which are fighting against the organizations and regimes identified as terrorists (Lewis, S., Reese, S. 2009). This makes ending the “War on Terror” a lot more difficult than most other wars. With many other types of war, it can end as simply as finding an agreement with the opposition, and/or killing the leader of the military force that is controlling them and try to win their country or force over in order to teach them the “proper” way to live. With the War on Terror this is very difficult because there is no country that the U.S. is fighting and terrorists are spread throughout the world with no direct leader of them all. With terrorism, there what’s called “cells” throughout the world that operate sometimes without any direction or leader, and their main focus is causing as much terror as possible in any way possible. Due to this, it is highly unlikely that we will ever truly end the War on Terror, because we will more than likely never end terror.
The best way to ethically end a war that may never end is to formally end the war with our congress, but to keep security measures to protect our country. Before September 11, 2001, our country was already fighting terrorists without the title of a war. It is possible to continue to fight terrorism by these means. The war would be over with, but only to the public’s eye, but the fighting and protection of our country would still be in place. The world will unfortunately never have people that do not want to cause terror, and because of this there will always be a fight against terror. The only ethical way to end this war is to have the terrorists decide to stop causing terror. Since this is anything but possible there will always be the battle against those people: the War on Terror.
In Iraq, clear and achievable goals were set by Americans and Iraqis. The U.S. will promote an Iraqi government that is just, representative, accountable and will not be a safe haven for terrorists. The U.S. met their goals of removing the ruthless tyrant from the country as well as removing his government. A democracy was implemented and elections held. Security forces were trained as well as a new military. Slowly, the U.S. left Iraq and turned over operations to the new government. This is how a just war should end. It is now up to Iraq to choose their new direction, their allies and how they will act in a just and ethical way in today’s society.
In Afghanistan, the end of the war is coming to an end. It is not going as smoothly as it did in Iraq. Elective officials continue to be killed and new elections are corrupt. Military and security forces are being trained but have been plagued with being infiltrated by Al Qaeda operatives who then attack U.S. Forces inside their bases. However, Osama Bin Laden was killed during a Special Forces operation and other Al Qaeda leaders have also been killed in targeted strikes. This has reduced the effectiveness of the terrorists and limited their operations. With a 2014 pullout of Afghanistan now set, the ending appears to follow the guidelines in a Just War.
The War on Terror is tough to define according to the Just War Theory. This war has led us to battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to remove terrorists and regimes that support terrorist organizations. These wars were meant to make the world a safer place and prevent further attacks against the United States like the one that happened on September 11, 2001. These wars have been proven to be just as they war initiated by a legitimate government because all other actions had failed in the past. Conduct during the war was ethical and did not go against the rules of engagements set forth by the Just War Theory. Lastly, as the wars are coming to an end, every effort is made to implement a new government and leave the countries better than they were before the wars started. While there may be some bumps in the roads ahead for Iraq and Afghanistan, they are far better off now. Adam, G. (2006, October 01). Abu ghraib, administrative evil, and moral inversion:. Retrieved from http://academic.udayton.edu/RichardGhere/POL 318/Adams_Guy_B.pdf

Becker, J., & Shane, S. (2012, May 29). Secret ‘kill list’ proves a test of obama’s principles and will. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&

Beliefnet.com. (2004, December). Most inspiring person of 2004. Retrieved from http://www.beliefnet.com/Inspiration/Most-Inspiring-Person-Of-The-Year/2004/Most-Inspiring-Person-of-the-Year-2004.aspx

CBSNEWS.com. (2009, February 11). U.s. army bans torture of prisoners. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-224_162-1976599.html

CIA (2012) CIA & War on Terrorism. Terrorism FAQs. Retrieved from : https://www.cia.gov/news-information/cia-the-war-on-terrorism/terrorism-faqs.html

CNN.com. (2004, April 07). Marines: U.s. bombed iraqi mosque wall. Retrieved from http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-07/world/fallujah.strike_1_muslim-house-mosque-compound-marines?_s=PM:WORLD

Crowley, M. (2011, September 30). Was killing american al qaeda cleric anwar al-awlaki legal?. Retrieved from http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/30/was-killing-american-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-legal/

Epatko, L. (2011, October 10). Controversy surrounds increased use of u.s. drone strikes . Retrieved from http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/10/drone-strikes-1.html

Frost, M. (n.d.). Abu ghraib torture and prisoner abuse. Retrieved from http://www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/abu_ghraib2.html

Lewis, S., Reese, S. (2009) What is the War on Terror? Framing through the eyes of journalists. Retrieved from: http://journalism.utexas.edu/sites/journalism.utexas.edu/files/attachments/reese/what-is-war-terror-framing-lewis-reese.pdf

Martin, J. (2007, February 23). Secarmy sees abu ghraib. Retrieved from http://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=469978

Roggio, B., & Mayer, A. (2012, December 01). Charting the data for us airstrikes in pakistan, 2004 - 2012. Retrieved from http://www.longwarjournal.org/pakistan-strikes.php

Wikipedia.org. (2012, December 06). War on terror. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Terror

Wikipedia.org. (2012, December 04). Just war theory. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_war_theory