After having read
David Rodin’s “Terrorism Without Intention”, I do not agree with his conclusion,
which is based on his moral analysis of terrorism. Essentially, Rodin compares counter-terrorism
measures and military operations with those carried out by terrorists based on
his definitions of terrorism as attacks against non-combatant civilians, his
criticism of the principle of double-effect and the incidence of non-combatant
casualties as a direct example of how counter-terrorist operations have the
potential to be similarly “reckless” and “negligent” as the terrorists’. I believe that his argument, though
philosophically sound, fails to provide a more feasible tactical resolution to
combatting terrorism, other than suggesting that there is a “higher standard of
care required” from military personnel conducting counterterrorism (562).
Furthermore, I
find that the general definition of terrorism has a wide range of
interpretations and must therefore be qualified based on the conflict that it
refers to when counter-terrorist forces unintentionally end up targeting civilian
noncombatants. Given the deliberate
human shielding by some terrorists, who protect themselves with civilian
noncombatants in their areas, the incidence of civilian casualties from
military and counter-terrorist operations becomes a reflection of the
terrorists’ own responsibility for the greater number of civilian deaths that
are incurred when they are targeted by military operations against them.
Terrorism must, therefore,
be distinguished from military operations that are designed to carry out a
warfare mission against adversary combatant forces, and its definition must become
less ambiguous so that counteraction does not mistakenly fall into the same
category as terrorism against civilian noncombatants. Unfortunately, the military’s aerial strikes
sometimes invariably end up killing civilians due to the way in which
terrorists insert themselves into civilian populations. That being said, the evolution of aerial warfare
from widespread bombing to surgical drone strikes has dramatically reduced the
likelihood of non-combatant-civilian deaths.
your point is essentially that we need to think about policy/military responses when making a definition. State and non-state terror don't require similar responses from states. If this is correct, you could argue that definitions can depend upon circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI guess that Rodin would counter by asking anyone undertaking counterinsurgency or counterterror to not be reckless or negligible. Those terms, of course, leave a lot of room for interpretation.
I completely agree that the definitions of terrorism depend upon the circumstances and firmly believe that it is a moral imperative for military operations to ensure that they are carried out in a way that reduces the loss of life at all costs, especially of noncombatants. Drone warfare offers the most precise capability to deliver weapons on target short of special operations missions that jeopardize the lives of our own operators. There must always be a weighing of mission relevance and possibility of casualties in all efforts to prevent terror from spreading. I believe a conscious failure to do so is criminal.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if policy making were the issue when creating a definition, perhaps a stronger presence of international law could make a difference too? I took an international law course while studying in Rome, Italy. I actually led a presentation discussing the US drone warfare and how more accountability through international law could very well change the way drone warfare operates.
ReplyDeleteThere are many ways to define terrorism, depending on the perspective and specific situation. While it can be argued that drone warfare has reduced the risk of noncombatant deaths, there is still the risk of killing innocent people. I think Rodin does offer a sound argument of how "counter-terrorism" measures can be viewed as reckless and negligent. I do not think it is justified to destroy families of innocent civilians in order to combat terrorism. There must be a way to be more precise in U.S. military operations.
ReplyDeleteI agree that drones have reduced the likelihood of non-combatants deaths but there is still room for improvements. Targeted killings still pose a risk of killing innocent non-combatants.
ReplyDelete