Okay so this will probably be the only post I EVER do on politics, just not a debate I usually get into but I recently wrote a paper for Philosophy of 9/11 and I thought if any one was ever SUPER bored and wanted to read a long ass paper they could find it here. Or I suppose someone browsing online could steal it and use it in their own philosophy class, whatever like I care, but anyways these are my views on the use of targeted killing in the war on terror.
Morality or Mortality: Targeted Killing in the War on Terror
Morality or Mortality? Philosophical debate seems to ride these issues back and forth. Daniel Statman’s essay “Targeted Killing” looks closely at both sides of the debate. Statman comes to the conclusion that the “acceptance of the legitimacy of the killing and destruction in a conventional war necessarily entails accepting the legitimacy of targeted killing in the war against terror” (183). While I agree with the use of targeted killing in certain cases, such as the war on terror, I do not think it is necessary to accept the legitimacy of killing and destruction to find targeted killing a viable option. It is my opposition to killing and destruction that led me to accept the idea of targeted killing. Though it may sound as though I am contradicting myself by that claim, I hope to prove that the use of targeted killing in some cases is more effective and will save thousands of civilian lives.
Statman states, “In war, goes the common wisdom, soldiers of all sides are permitted to kill any soldier of the adversary.” While I may hold with that statement I must examine the word “soldier”. The word “soldier” often calls to mind a uniformed, distinguishable officer, but in the case of the war on terror, the “soldiers” of Al Qaeda are far from easily distinguishable. So, even though states may “kill any enemy soldier” (Statman 185), who is to decide who is and is not a solider and thereby who gets to live and die. As it sits now intelligence is received, areas are bombed and thousands die, albeit some of them may have been terrorists, but by no means were all of them terrorists (my use of the word terrorist in this essay is referring to Al Qaeda “soldiers” and affiliates). The high civilian death toll is not due to lack of consideration but because terrorists “hide among the civilian population…civilians are a shield behind which terrorists hide” (Statman 190). Statman’s argument that “war against terror should be directed (to as great an extent as possible) only at terrorists” (190) is an obvious one, but how do we remedy our moral obligations’ incongruity with the realities of the war on terror? In my opinion it can be remedied with targeted killing. The use of targeted killing would allow a more defined knowledge of the enemies “soldiers”. The killing of only the enemy would greatly reduce or in some cases eliminate civilian death. Reducing time and money now used for bombs, artillery and numerous soldiers would allow revenue and men to be filtered into better intelligence and into the training of target killers. Better intelligence would (I hope) be translated into deciphering who is and is not affiliated with Al Qaeda, enabling trained target killers to take out potentially dangerous targets with little or no ‘collateral damage’.
The term “collateral damage” seems to be thrown about rather flippantly by the government and media when referring to civilian deaths in the war on terror. I give that some civilian deaths may be necessary in the pursuit of lofty goals, such as the defeat of Al Qaeda, but when more civilians than actual enemy are dying or injured, is it still just collateral damage? I think this disproportionality is cause for some serious rethinking of military strategy. As Statman states, “invading a civilian area inevitably leads to the deaths and injury of far more people, than does the careful use of targeted killing.” (191). Targeted killing would not only reduce death and injury but reduce terror itself (which, I think it is fair to say, is as much collateral damage as death and injury). Civilians in
Afghanistan would no long need to live in fear of bombs dropping or raids on villages, though terrorists may have cause to worry about snipers taking them unaware. If some of the fear caused by targeted killing spilled over into civilian life, it may be said to be an acceptable thing. Civilians would fear an affiliation with terrorists as they could lose their lives at any moment by being seen as a known affiliate. This may sound cruel, but is it so much crueler than indiscriminately bombing a village, giving civilians no choice but death? I do not think so.
“States can go to war for the sake of formal sovereignty” (Statman 185). Without finishing this sentence we are already faced with a huge problem. The war on terror is not a war between two states. Al Qaeda resides in a state; it is not a state in and of itself. But it remains a war because of “(a) the gravity of the threat posed by Al Qaeda and (b) the impractibility of coping with this threat by conventional law-enforcing institutions and methods” (Statman 187-88). In holding with the idea that the war on terror is indeed a war, I must move forth with how this non-traditional war can be fought. Currently, the war on terror is being fought, by the US, in a more conventional way (bombing, tanks, army presence), while the terrorists continue to engage in extremely unconventional warfare (suicide bombing, hijacking airplanes etc.). Terrorists do not follow rules of conventional war, should we? By no means do I feel we should abandon all morals in the quest for victory, but I do feel the game has changed and it would be absurd to apply, let us say, the rule of tennis to the game of hockey. The rules evolve along with the way the war is waged. Targeted killing seems, in the case of the war against terror, to be our best weapon in this war. Targeted killing is not the most traditional war stratagem, which makes it ideal for fighting this non-traditional war. Snipers have been used in many wars, and faced little to no opposition. The difference between targeted killing in the war on terror and the use of snipers in previous wars is the lack of combining snipers with more traditional military tactics. But since it has been shown that fighting a non-traditional war with traditional tactics is ineffective, it seems as though a resurgence of sniper tactics (targeted killing) would be effectual. Snipers were used to take out specific targets, and that is what targeted killing in the war against terrorism would be used for, but on a larger scale. Terrorist tactics, while seemingly random, are indeed a distorted form of targeted killing, they seek out a specific target or targets and eliminate it. Terrorists use information to make decisions on which target would most effectively weaken (or cause fear in) the enemy. So it seems by using targeted killing we would not only be saving civilian lives but actually turning the enemy’s tool back on themselves.
Our worry for civilian life in the face of terrorists who kill thousands of civilians intentionally, and with little moral thought may seem weak, but I think holding onto morality in the face of such atrocities as these is what distinguishes us from the terrorists. It is what makes this war just, and if we lose sight of our morality we will no longer be fighting a just war. Do we have to choose between morality and mortality? I hope not. Targeted killing actually helps to quell this debate. Rather than shrugging off civilian death as collateral damage, targeted killing makes an effort at reducing, as much as possible, the amount of damage inflicted on cities, towns and the states and minimizing civilian death during war. Unorthodox? Most definitely, in that it is one of the few tactics used in war that can be used to reduce death and destruction rather than cause it.
