War on Terror, the Question of Justice

Throughout American History, there have been many instances of high controversy, especially regarding military and political actions. One that stands out is the “War on Terror,” beginning in 2001. Some claimed that the causes were based on the economic benefit of America and the desire for increased domestic population surveillance, siding with the idea that the “War on Terror” was unjust. Thus, it is apparent that the War on Terror appears as a just and obligatory reaction, ethically formed in the principles of “Jus Ad Bellum,” directed by the important aim to erode the terrorists of the September 11 attacks on New York City and effectively remedy the occurring challenges of future terrorism.

Although the War on Terror has been labeled as one of the longest wars in American history, it is essential to state that it differs from previous wars. It was mainly composed of two wars, Afghanistan and Iraq, with other causes. Even though the attacks on September 11 did not solely cause conflict with Iraq, they did play a substantial role. A Washington Post Poll after the attacks on September 11 provided evidence that more than two-thirds of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the attacks^[1]. It was apparent that the attacks altered Americans’ views on Iraq, further backing the idea of going to war in Iraq. As warfare progressed in Afghanistan, President Bush mentioned Iraq in his State of the Union Speech in 2002. He elaborated on the idea that Iraq and the nations surrounding Afghanistan were terrorist allies. They were threatening global peace by providing arms to terrorists and promoting the creation of weapons of mass destruction.^[2]. At this juncture, raised issues on possible future terrorist attacks manipulated public perspectives, spreading support for the assumptions presented by politicians.

Legitimate authority is granted to public authorities and set organizations; in this situation, the American government carries legitimate authority by being an organized group, while a group of individual terrorists does not. The United States displayed the right intention in their actions as retaliation and terrorist suppression. This is proved because of the actions that occurred directly after the September 11 attacks. The likelihood of success is a more complex factor and takes into account the costs and benefits of the outcome of war. In this case, a foreign war in mountainous areas would prove challenging for the United States and be part of the reason for the loss of American soldiers lives.^[3] However, not only would the United States armed forces be fighting terrorism as an American problem but also as a global issue. Ultimately saving millions of lives. Even though foreign battles in mountainous terrain are not the ideal fighting scene for American troops, it is safe to agree that American technology and practical training styles compared to those of its enemies should make war seem winnable. In the end, the fighting and losses are proportionally worth it. Thus, the expenses and sacrifices persevered in foreign struggles despite challenges are proven by the thousands of lives redeemed for the righteous lives of millions across the globe.

Some may argue that the goals of the war are too broad and that putting an end to global terrorism is unreasonable since there will always be people with evil intent. But now, as the war is over, its accomplishments are evident. Al-Qaeda, the terrorist organization that was responsible for the attacks on September 11, has been eradicated. Specifically, the leader of the group,

The War on Terror was a just war due to the fact that it agreed with the principles of the “Jus Ad Bellum philosophy.” The battle was of good intent and was organized with proper authority. The struggle was reasonable because it was winnable, and success was proportional to any losses suffered throughout time. The world now is greatly different from how it was before the War on Terror. The United States made the correct decisions in its involvement in the middle east and provided a safer future for Americans. As such, this transition era also deliberated the emerging state of conflict in the 21^st century, stressing the necessity for adaptive techniques in reaction to non-traditional risks.[4] The War on Terror depicted a central moment in the worldly consciousness, promoting awareness of the interlink of security issues across boundaries. The encounter supported the effectiveness of international corporations in handling rising difficulties and changing traditional perspectives of warfare. As an impact, the War on Terror rectified the geopolitical map. It ignited a more linked and vigilant universe, where ideas highly considered the common role of protecting worldly harmony and security.

The historical path of the War on Terror, evaluated through the dimensions of the Jus Ad Bellum philosophy, discloses a challenging world of ethical considerations and geopolitical dynamics. Inaugurated in reaction to the September 11 attacks, the rivalry focused on eroding the grave public evil of violence, taking it away from previous discords.[5] The different causes of the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq underline the significant application of fair war principles. Secretary of Defense Lloyd James Austin Ill’s lamentation of an appropriate war of self-defense in Afghanistan corresponds with the fair cause criterion. At the same time, the subsequent association with Iraq, ignited by public ideas post-September 11, deliberates the challenging link of political dynamics influencing the orbit of the war. The emergence of the conflict reflects the appropriate communication used to prove military action. The correspondence of the activities of the United States with the standards of just cause, legitimate power, and correct intention becomes apparent in the examined reaction to world terrorism risk.[6] Although there are difficulties in analyzing the possibility of prosperity on challenging grounds, the dominating focus on saving lives as an American criticism and worldly matter highlights the equal and ethical consideration cultivated in the decision-making process under the “Jus Ad Bellum “ framework. Thus, in the aftermath, the elimination of AI-Qaeda and ISIS functions as a genesis of the correspondence of the war with Jus Ad Belum’s philosophy, confirming the ethical basis of the involvement of the United States in the War on Terror.

The legislative geomorphology amidst the War on Terror encountered central actions that underlined the weight and mutual dedication of the United States in dealing with the risk of terrorism. The Authorization for Use of Military Force, an essential legislative action in the War on Terror, was formulated in 2001 to handle the challenge created by the 9/11 attacks.[7] This legislation offered the President the power to use military force against those regarded to be accountable for terrorism. The aim of the act was broad, creating the basis for military solutions in Afghanistan and Iraq. Its passage depicted the mutual dedication of the United States to face and counteract the emerging and challenging difficulties depicted by worldly terrorism. Although the AUMF was essential in delivering the legal ground for military action, it raised crucial discussions following the power equity between the executive and legislative arms. The message and depth of the Authorization agitated queries on the possibility of perennial military involvements and the level of executive authority. Thus, as the legal basis for military performances, the implications of this action exceeded the instant practices it authorized, resulting in the influence of U.S. counterterrorism struggles and executive choices.

The Military Commission Act of 2006 is another legislative action that was significantly involved in the War on Terror. However, it is clear that in the subsequent years, the legislative action had a leading responsibility in cultivating techniques for the emerging nature of the rivalry. The Military Commission Act significantly focused on creating legal processes for trialing people categorized as unlawful enemy warriors.[8] As such, this legislative action dealt with the necessity for an acceptable framework to handle arrestees related to terrorist practices, delivering equity between security issues and conformance to legal standards. The act encountered criticism for its outcome on civil freedom and process rights, deliberating the prevailing pressure between security orders and constitutional norms in the War on Terror.

In addition, the USA PATRIOT Act existed for some time after the 9/11 attacks and exemplified an expansive legislative reaction to promote the interrogative and surveillance authority of the government. This act focused on improving law formulation abilities during the emergence of terrorist risks, delivering tools to trace and prosecute suspected individuals.[9] Although the act was structured as an essential measure for national prevention, it created issues of infringement on personal privacy and civil liberties. The USA PATRIOT Act represented the importance of equity that lawmakers yearned on fostering public safety and adapting foundational rights in the setting of a perennial rivalry against terrorism.

Presidential engagement in the War on Terror was important in influencing the ideas and strategies used in reaction to the challenge of terrorism. President George Bush, regarding the 9/11 attacks, supposed a leading leadership function, stressing the weight of the circumstances and presenting a practical course of action.[10] In his words and public addresses, the President structured the rivalry as a struggle against terrorism that needed a detailed and maintained reaction. The conversation of President Bush with the American citizens focused on improving reinforcement for military solutions in Afghanistan and later in Iraq, showcasing the interlink of worldly security. The President’s involvement exceeded the rhetoric as it entailed appropriate choices that directed military performances and diplomatic struggles.

The development of military action in the War on Terror deliberated the challenge of the universal counterterrorism struggle. Performances in Afghanistan previously aimed at eradicating the Taliban and altering Al-Qaeda necessitated a merging of proper warfare and unique operations.[11] The difficulties depicted by the rugged geography and the temporary state of the enemy called for adaptive techniques. Military practices became more challenging as the rivalry progressed to Iraq, indicating that they were facilitated through the prevailing forces, intelligence performances, and nation-development struggles. The choice to be involved in Iraq, as presented in the State of the Union Speech in 2002 by President Bush, shows the link between states reinforcing terrorism and the thought essence to handle risks at their sources. The coordination of the government and the military focused on eradicating terrorist organizations while curbing their main channels. The managed military practices illuminated the dedication of the government to face terrorism effectively, influencing the War on Terror into a challenging venture and reacting to emerging tensions in various places.

Regarding how American citizens reacted to legislative actions in the War on Terror, it was a blend of support, consideration, and active participation in the public context. The enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act after the attacks established different responses. Although the majority considered the importance of promoted security policies, there were issues with infringing on civil freedom.[12] Discussions disclosed following the equity of national security and the maintenance of personal liberty contributed to controversies on the trade-offs dominating in reacting to the difficulties of terrorism. Public involvement in these discussions illuminated a dedication to possessing democratic standards despite extrinsic pressures. Furthermore, the Military Act Commission, which agitated the creation of an accepted process for the trial of unlawful enemy warriors, knocked the discussion on equalizing security and process rights. Americans participated in debates on the ethical effects of the legislation, showing the state’s dedication to curbing matters revolving around the War on Terror.

The feedback of the Americans to military actions in the War on Terror was different, speculating the challenges of a rivalry that gauged various theatres and techniques. Previously, there was a huge reinforcement for military involvement in Afghanistan as a reaction to the 9/11 attacks. The rivalry stretched to Iraq, making the public response more meaningful. Anti-war protests and opposing voices evolved, interrogating the justification for a military solution and showing concern for human and economic expenses. [13] The difficulties encountered in Afghanistan’s challenging geography and the emerging rivalry in Iraq forced citizens to analyze the efficiency of military strategies. The public converse illuminated a need for clarity and accountability in choice-making, with discussions on the emerging nature of the U.S. Army’s responsibility in the Middle East. Thus, the variation of suggestions among Americans disclosed the challenge of maneuvering military actions in the War on Terror, illustrating practical democratic participation with issues of national importance.

In summation, the War on Terror created in the ethical dimensions of the “Jus Ad Bellum” philosophy appears as a just and essential reaction to the risks perpetuated by the September 11 attacks. Legislative actions, such as the Authorization for the Use of Military Force and the USA PATRIOT Act, delivered the proper basis for practical counterterrorism struggles. Although these reactions ignited discussions on civil liberties, they were powerful tools in the quest for justice and worldly security. The presidential participation, represented by President George Bush’s leadership, directed military strategies that targeted to erode those accountable for the September 11 attacks and decrease the possibility of the upcoming practices of terrorism. The military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq reasoned the adaptability and focus of the U.S. Armed Forces going through the challenging paths of geopolitical dynamics. The reactions of the citizens underlined the democratic participation of the Americans in matters of broad national importance. The erosion of AI-Qaeda and ISIS, attained via concerted struggles, functions as a testimony to the fair cause and balance cultivated in the War on Terror. Through speculation of this changing period, it is apparent that choices articulated, formed in ethical consideration and the quest for worldly peace, have resulted in a more secure future for Americans and the international society. Therefore, the War on Terror’s ethical challenges are a significant part of history, illustrating the necessity for ethical reactions to universal difficulties.

Bibliography

1993 US Catholic Conference

Alexander Moseley, 2023

CRISIS GROUP. “Overkill: Reforming the Legal Basis for the U.S. War on Terror.” www.crisisgroup.org, September 17, 2021. https://www.crisisgroup.org/united-states/005-overkill-reforming-legal-basis-us-war-terror#:~:text=of%20the%20war.-.

Demir, Mustafa, and Ahmet Guler. “A Comparison of Target Types, Weapon Types, and Attack Types in Suicide-Terrorism Incidents before and after 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.” Security Journal, June 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-021-00301-6.

Hajjar, Lisa. “The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US ‘War on Terror.’” Law & Social Inquiry 44, no. 4 (March 19, 2019): 922–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2018.26.

Hall, Jonny. “‘Winning’ the Forever Wars? Presidential Rhetoric and US Ontological (In)Security.” Global Studies Quarterly 2, no. 4 (October 2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksac067.

Hartig, Hannah, and Carroll Doherty. “Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy. Pew Research Center, September 2, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/.

Immediate Release: Austin James Lloyd III, Press Release, August 30, 2022

Kattelman, Kyle T. “Assessing Success of the Global War on Terror: Terrorist Attack Frequency and the Backlash Effect.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 13, no. 1 (September 9, 2019): 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2019.1650384.

McCall-Smith, Kasey. “How Torture and National Security Have Corrupted the Right to Fair Trial in the 9/11 Military Commissions.” Journal of Conflict and Security Law 27, no. 1 (February 3, 2022): 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krac002.

Mueller, John. “Public Opinion on War and Terror: Manipulated or Manipulating?” Cato.org, August 10, 2021. https://www.cato.org/white-paper/public-opinion-war-terror.

Rajah, Johnie. “Law, Politics, and Populism in the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (2019): 61. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.26.1.0061.Australian Parliament Records, 2021.

President Bush, State of the Union, January 29, 2002.

The Associated Press, May 16, 2009.

Washington Post Poll, September 6, 2003

[1] Washington Post Poll, September 6, 2003

[2] President Bush, State of the Union, January 29, 2002

[3] The Associated Press, May 16, 2009

[4] Hajjar, Lisa. “The Counterterrorism War Paradigm versus International Humanitarian Law: The Legal Contradictions and Global Consequences of the US ‘War on Terror.’” Law & Social Inquiry 44, no. 4 (March 19, 2019): 922–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2018.26

[5]Demir, Mustafa, and Ahmet Guler. “A Comparison of Target Types, Weapon Types, and Attack Types in Suicide-Terrorism Incidents before and after 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.” Security Journal, June 1, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-021-00301-6.

[6]Kattelman, Kyle T. “Assessing Success of the Global War on Terror: Terrorist Attack Frequency and the Backlash Effect.” Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict 13, no. 1 (September 9, 2019): 67–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/17467586.2019.1650384.

[7]CRISIS GROUP. “Overkill: Reforming the Legal Basis for the U.S. War on Terror.” www.crisisgroup.org, September 17, 2021. https://www.crisisgroup.org/united-states/005-overkill-reforming-legal-basis-us-war-terror#:~:text=of%20the%20war.-.

[8]McCall-Smith, Kasey. “How Torture and National Security Have Corrupted the Right to Fair Trial in the 9/11 Military Commissions.” Journal of Conflict and Security Law 27, no. 1 (February 3, 2022): 83–116. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krac002.

[9]Rajah, Johnie. “Law, Politics, and Populism in the U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act.” Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 26, no. 1 (2019): 61. https://doi.org/10.2979/indjglolegstu.26.1.0061.

[10]Hall, Jonny. “‘Winning’ the Forever Wars? Presidential Rhetoric and US Ontological (In)Security.” Global Studies Quarterly 2, no. 4 (October 2022). https://doi.org/10.1093/isagsq/ksac067

[11]CRISIS GROUP. “Overkill: Reforming the Legal Basis for the U.S. War on Terror.” www.crisisgroup.org, September 17, 2021. https://www.crisisgroup.org/united-states/005-overkill-reforming-legal-basis-us-war-terror#:~:text=of%20the%20war.-

[12]Mueller, John. “Public Opinion on War and Terror: Manipulated or Manipulating?” Cato.org, August 10, 2021. https://www.cato.org/white-paper/public-opinion-war-terror.

[13]Hartig, Hannah, and Carroll Doherty. “Two Decades Later, the Enduring Legacy of 9/11.” Pew Research Center – U.S. Politics & Policy. Pew Research Center, September 2, 2021. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/09/02/two-decades-later-the-enduring-legacy-of-9-11/