Ethical Challenges of the War in Afghanistan Essay

In response to the September 11 attacks, the United States should declare war on the responsible group. As a nation, we should do only the actions that bring about the best consequences, and the best consequences would occur by bringing the responsible group to justice. In this case, killing the Taliban and its supporters is the right action because it produces the greatest amount of good.

A universal and unavoidable product of war is that soldiers get killed. Most people accept these killings as a necessary evil and that the ends justify the means. If the war is “justifiable”,the killing of enemy soldiers is deemed as a necessary triumph of what is right. If the war is unjustified, it is seen as honorable to fight for one's country, whether you agree with them or not. But antiwar pacifists do not take the lives of soldiers for granted. Everyone has a right to life and killing on the battlefield is a direct violation of that right. In a standard interpretation of basic rights, it is never morally justifiable to violate a right in order to produce some good. In war, the argument goes, kill or be killed, and that type of killing is killing in self-defense. But, according to anti-war pacifists, killing in the name of self-defense during times of war cannot be justified unless a) they had no other way to protect their

Torture has long been a controversial issue in the battle against terrorism. Especially, the catastrophic incident of September 11, 2001 has once again brought the issue into debate, and this time with more rage than ever before. Even until today, the debate over should we or should we not use torture interrogation to obtain information from terrorists has never died down. Many questions were brought up: Does the method go against the law of human rights? Does it help prevent more terrorist attacks? Should it be made visible by law? It is undeniable that the use of torture interrogation surely brings up a lot of problems as well as criticism. One of the biggest problems is that if torture is effective at all. There are

Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their

The War in Afghanistan has been an all consuming conflict for the US government since we started to launch air strikes on October 7, 2001. This is a conflict that’s been brewing since before the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. This war has the continuation of past conflicts in it, conflicts that can be connected a good deal to the interference of other large powers, such as the USSR. From keeping an eye on the oil reserves, pressuring Iran, and keeping Pakistan stable, our interests and motives for occupying Afghanistan are undeniably laced with many ulterior motives, providing us with the issue of unfavorable opinion and our interests being the source of terrorist attacks. Afghanistan is a country that has been plagued with

The equation of dealing with terrorism on an ethical level is complicated by its components not connected to an official state. Just War theory sets a list of checkpoints before a just war can be declared (Snauwaert 2004). This list is known as the Jus ad Bellum and is comprises, but not limited to: just cause, right authority, right intention, proportionality, reasonable hope of success, and last resort (Snauwaert 2004).

As with any other issue, different thinkers have disagreed on what the standards should be for warfare and how people should behave in such situations. Two thinkers that we have discussed, Martin Luther King, Jr. and Friedrich Nietzsche, held two vastly different approaches to ethics. Based on their differing philosophies as well as their views and influence on historical conflicts, we can

In today’s world, the military is not the only weapon nations utilize in times of war. Information is just as critical in the wars of strategy and advanced warfare. In the war against terrorism, where the enemy has no uniform or a specific nation to fight. In the war against terrorism, where sleeper cells live within the innocent civilians and strike fear from the inside out. The more the world advances in technology and warfare, information becomes more powerful than weapons of mass destruction. This is why nations spend billions of dollars every year. The CIA in the United States, the SVR in Russia, CIRO in Japan…the list goes on. All these are intelligence agencies used to gather information and secrets on foreign nations, whether they are allies or enemies makes no difference. Knowledge is the light in darkness to those agencies. What they cannot gather from clandestine operations, are gathered by extreme force. Force and pressure is applied by a very ancient and famous tool called torture. Because torture is outlawed in almost all nations, captured suspects are sent to special locations such as Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp (where laws do not apply to on foreign soil) to extract information from people by force. Hundreds of years ago, human rights did not exist. Killing and torturing was just a norm; but today, it is a very different world we live in where life, liberty, and happiness are

Under our 8th Amendment the act of torture and cruel punishment is deemed illegal and in violation of civil liberties (Lowenthal, 2011, pg. 318). In addition, according to the international Geneva Convention, “torture and humiliating treatment” are prohibited on detainees (Lowenthal, 2011, pg. 318). However, we see once again the exception to this rule argument as discussed earlier. We see the “war and peace” argument proposed by Lowenthal in which the action is justified due to the circumstances in which the act took place (Lowenthal, 2011, pg. 308). For example, during the cold war period the United States and Soviet Union found themselves engaging in attacks on each other, that under peaceful periods, would be deemed unacceptable and immoral (Lowenthal, 2011, pg. 308). However due to the circumstances of the cold war period these controversial issues were overlooked for the security of the country (Lowenthal, 2011, pg. 318). The similar argument was made, that the War on Terror occurred during the Afghanistan war (PBS, 2004). During this period, there was an urgency from the Bush administration to collect intelligence to prevent any future 9/11 attacks (PBS, 2004) even if this meant torture. The act of detaining suspects and torturing them to collectintelligence seemed important at the

At the time of my writing, the NATO war in Afghanistan has just become the longest war in U.S. history, a status it seems likely to retain for some time. It has been, and remains, a very strange war, all the stranger now that General Stanley McChrystal has been fired as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan following the lamest Douglas MacArthur impression on record. He has been replaced by General David Petraeus, the father and executor of the doctrine that lay behind the eventual U.S. military success in Iraq, a version of which is now being applied in Afghanistan. The notion that his appointment will lead to substantial changes in the Afghan mission is hence overblown, especially as up until a week ago he was the one telling

The United States promotes international freedom, and discourages any organization who is attempting to disrupt freedom. In recent years, terrorism has become one of the United States greatest dilemmas. Terrorism is a horrific crime against society, and the people who carry out these acts are considered people some of the worst criminals of today. Following September 11 the United States made a decision to wage war of terror. The United States “War on Terror” attempts confront these people and their organizations and remove them from power, bring peace to their home nation and hopefully establish international peace. (5) The war on terror is not only fought with guns and soldiers, but in the interrogation room as leaders attempted to learn more about the interworking of these dangerous groups. The men who are captured are dangerous and sometimes well connected leaders with lots of information. The question which logically arises after these men are detained, exactly what is the proper interrogation technique and exactly how far can we go to extract information. Clearly, any information these men have could save the lives of innocent people. Due to their knowledge terrorist cannot be imprisoned without making an attempt to learn what they know. This is where the War on Terror has created a huge moral dilemma, these men are dangerous and sometimes ruthless, but when they are in our hands what exactly is acceptable to save lives. Interrogation can quickly turn to torture as

War: whether it is internally, externally, physically, emotionally or mentally, war is exhausting. People of present-day all have many of struggles on their own. Some of these imperious people believe the best way to handle what is spread about them is by making others feel even worse. In a world such as today’s, people need to know that the only way to help and to keep sanity is to stand up for the weak, protect the defenseless, obey those placed in authority, and respect the honor of all.

Pacifism movements impact both soldiers and civilians. Pacifism may embrace in some instances self-defense. However, reasons to support the preservation of ourselves does not justify war. War is considered an unpardonable desecration of humanity. Antiwar arguments include that self-defense is not qualified since surrender is an option, soldiers kill other when they are in no danger (Johnson,1975). War may exonerate soldiers from legal liability because, during war, the enemy is expected to be killed however it is morally unjust (Shaw,2014). Lackey states that the excuse of self-defense can be avoided by surrendering. Perhaps the most significant tragedy of war and one opposed by Lackey’s argument is the innocent killing of civilians (Shaw,2014).

After the events of September 11, 2001, the United States had a unique dilemma. America was engaged in what would be called a “War on Terror”. This new conflict was unlike any in American history. Previously, in the context of war the United States had always fought a nation or group that had defined boundaries as to where they resided. This new conflict went away from these rules of the past. Terrorist groups were not bound to a region, but were instead united by an ideal. September 11 marked the first time in which terrorism would rise to the forefront of the nation’s agenda. This emergent wave of conflict required a different strategy than the those of the past because of the unorthodox nature of the opponent. One of the major innovations fostered by the “War on Terror” was the expansion of torture. The dramatic rise in terrorism sparked the unethical advancement of interrogation techniques in order to more effectively acquire information. The emergence of the “War on Terror” required government officials acquire intelligence in a new way thus spawning the emergence of “enhanced interrogation” methods, however, the morality of these techniques would come into question as they were revealed to the public.

Is it an effective and permissible means to respond to terrorism with the use of coercive interrogation or torture? The assumption that this is the best means to combat terrorists became justifiable in the minds of numerous people after the attack of 9/11. Interrogation or torture became known as skillful methods to retrieve information from suspects and to prevent further attacks. Although, the acts of terrorism are devastating, I pose that the use of coercive interrogation or torture are not effective means to respond to terrorism due to the questionable conjectures and the consequences of permitting these methods.