Islamic State and Justification

The reason I am going to compare the current “armed conflict” of the Islamic State is not because I feel that the conflicts in Ukraine (which haven’t stopped despite the news no longer reporting so) or Sudan, or any other country are less important, but because I feel that the Islamic State has the most chance to profoundly affect our way of life. Before we look at the brutal methods in which the IS uses its force, we must look at what their goal ultimately is. What is it that makes us (anyone not associated with the ideology that the IS preaches) so unworthy of living in their eyes? As put simply in the IS’s Arabic-English magazine, Dabiq, the Islamic State will not stop until their “Blessed flag...covers all eastern and western extents of the Earth, filling the world with the truth and justice of Islam and putting an end to the falsehood and tyranny of jahiliyyah [state of ignorance], even if American and its coalition despise such”. So, to start the conversation, if one’s goal is to take over (or at least have a huge impact on) the world, what is the cost (in terms of human suffering) that you are willing to commit? I dare say if your goals are so incredibly large then killing and torturing in order to get a step closer to your goal is in fact worth it. I am not looking at this from our western ideology, I am trying to see what reasoning do these terrorists use to justify their criminal acts. Of course these men are not sitting around wondering what their actions are going to do in the long run of human history, they are obviously acting upon realism. They are thinking “If we kill and torture, video it and make it available for the technologically advanced west, we will get the spotlight, possibly some negotiating power and maybe a few foreign recruits”. Their goal of creating a true Islamic State (or should I say world) is so overpowering that a human life has no value whatsoever. So is this just through their eyes? Is expansion ever justified, especially when there was no aggression (none directly towards their ideology, there was aggression on terror which gave birth to extremists who now want to destroy the west), or is the expansion justified when you feel it is necessary to grow your community? Those are questions I can not answer, and please don’t think I am sympathizing or trying to say what these inhumane scums are doing is right, I am simply trying to see how they could conceive that killing innocent people is okay.

Now to switch sides, do I think the coalition attacks of western forces on IS targets in Syria and Iraq is just? Yes. That is not as easy to type as one might think, how can killing innocent people be just in any way shape or form? I don’t know. I don’t have any concluding answers for you, but what I do have is how I feel in this scenario it is just. With or without the bombing of IS targets, there will be massive civilian casualties in Syria. These casualties will be mainly caused by IS itself. Islamic State is going to kill anyone who does not obey their orders, most of the time this will be innocent people who are not willing to accept their ideology. So by bombing targets affiliated with IS, even if there are some civilian casualties, we could be preventing the death of other civilians. To bring Waltzer into the situation, his Double Effect Doctrine outlines a “just” cause for killing civilians.

1.The act is good, as in it is a legitimate act of war

I believe that it is not just a conflict in which countries of the west can just ignore, and by intervening they are committing themselves to war.

2) The direct effect is morally acceptable.

Again, I feel that if you think you are above someone else who is innocent to the point where you can kill them, then you yourself should be killed by someone who’s job it is to kill people. If you feel you can take a life that has not signed up to be equal to you (when you are a soldier you get to kill simply because you yourself can be killed in return) then someone who DID sign up to be equal to you should be able to exterminate you on the basis that you took someone's life. By killing someone innocent you give up your rights. That’s how I see it anyways, If you feel differently please comment so we can exchange ideas. I also feel this way about capital punishment, not just in war.

3) The intention of the actor is good, that is he aims only at the acceptable effect.

Out of them all I think this one should be the most true in our case, we are not targeting civilians, no we are bombing targets which are IS strongholds, oil refineries, armories and training camps. Do mistakes happen? Yes. Do civilian lives get destroyed by U.S. drone strikes? Yes. Does the U.S. actively try to destroy civilians? No. That is not their intention and I seriously doubt that it ever will be.

4) The good effect is sufficiently good to compensate for the evil sometimes caused.

To finish it off, yes. As said before the more IS militants we kill, the more civilians we ultimately save.

Will I ever have a definitive answer to whether or not wars are ever just? I do not know. I do not know about a lot right now, I do not know whether our politicians are willing to save this planet for our future generations to enjoy. I do not know whether there will ever be a lasting peace, or how to create a world where there is minimal amount of violence. I do not know if our security in this country will always be at the level it is at now. My duty now is to observe, learn, and create my sense of what I think is wrong and right.