Thursday, September 13, 2001

Brutal retaliation for attacks is morally justified
by Benjamin Meier
Skiff Staff

The events of this past week should serve to make America aware that the global landscape has been irrevocably altered.

Undoubtedly, many officials will find themselves longing for a return to the stability afforded by the often incorrectly remembered “good old days” of the Cold War.

Modern warfare is vastly different from the realities of the four decades spanning the Cold War.

Wars in the 21st century will not resemble those of our parents and grandparents. In fact, defining war in this new environment raises questions. How does our nation, with its military power, wage war against an individual or group with no borders to defend, no uniformed military to strike against, no civilian populace to protect; a group lacking all the defining characteristics of a nation-state yet determined to act like one.

Does a group that has taken up the tools of statecraft become a legitimate target for the same consequences which befall those true nation-states that have utilized armed aggression?

It is hard to imagine that there can be any civilized response to such savage attacks against civilians.

Perhaps the only responsible action is to wage the most uncivilized and brutal attack possible against those who would commit such atrocities. Such an attack would be designed to ensure that those who would execute such strikes in the future, or grant quarter and support to those who would, understand the consequences of conducting campaigns of terror will be so grossly out of proportion, so gruesome, so shocking that no one could again contemplate such an exploit.

If through this retaliation the lives of those who may have been killed in subsequent terrorist acts can be spared, is such brutality not morally justified and in fact the obligation of a government sworn to defend the freedom and security of its citizens?

Would a more measured and reasoned response satisfy the need to answer this challenge, or would such a limited strike against each new group as it emerged and acted simply begin a Darwinian cycle of natural selection whereby future terrorists very quickly become either highly proficient and difficult to deter or just as quickly become detected and incarcerated?

Questions such as these will likely occupy the minds of public officials and fill public forums for quite some time, and reaching the answers will require some pointed introspection regarding just how far we as Americans are willing to go in order to ensure our safety and secure the freedoms we have become so accustomed to.

Benjamin Meier is a junior political science major from Flowermound.
He can be contacted at (b.j.meier@student.tcu.edu).