Quote:
Originally Posted by Marina
I think the guy is making a case for just asymmetric warfare. Like we have rules such as the Geneva convention and theory on just war.
The terrorists are at war. Is it a just war?
The US and allies are at war with a non-state. That has never happened before - on a worldwide scale. So how do we have a just asymmetric war with terrorists, that is civilians who are at war with us.
The questions in the article cannot be answered because there are no rules for a war with civilians.
So is this a clash of civilizations? The west again the ummah? What is the ummah? Who represents it? Who represents the west?
Without answers to moral questions, we have an ethical dilemma. The real question is: do terrorists have ethics?
That would be the subject of another thread but I don't really want to debate terrorists' ethics.
|
Marina--
Your post is thought provoking.
To throw a few more questions into the mix.
- Does a clash of civilizations need to be just?
- Might the U.S. and its allies be better served making geostrategic arguments for GWOT that are amoral but establish parameters for ethical conduct?
- Do efforts to establish a moral framework for GWOT set the conditions needed to wage successfully coalition warfare today?