Does War Demonstrate Power?

On Friday evening the internet was flooded with articles about the terrorist attack that happened in Paris. People began to post pictures with hashtag #PrayForParis and to raise awareness of the fact that one can never know if they will not be attacked by surprise. After two days of investigation it is announced that ISIS was responsible for the attack. ISIS itself proclaimed a World War. In the last months the terrorist organization has begun to wage attacks against different countries – for example, a month ago there was a terrorist attack in Ankara with more than 100 victims. ISIS is a declared caliphate with most power and influence in Syria and Iraq but as we can see this is gradually changing and today the world is not so safe anymore.

In the past month we have discussed the use of violence and if violence is necessary for leaders to maintain their rule as well as to acquire new power. Clauswitz’s text On War defines war as an “act of violence intended to compel our opponent to fulfill our will”. We can see that this is a valid definition for the recent events, since ISIS wants to impose its religious beliefs on the whole world through the use of violence. The terrorist organization mercilessly kills innocent people and says that it will continue until it cleanses the world from those who do not accept their interpretation of the Koran. In class we also said that war is politics by other means. However, the question one must ask is if war is not a sign of weakness. When leaders begin a war this means that they did not manage to come to an agreement through the use of normal means. In the case of ISIS, the caliphate has never tried to reach an agreement via peaceful politics such as negotiations and compromises. From the very beginning it started seizing power with the use of violence. Just this fact should make us think if this doesn’t show that they have a weak strategy – can a terrorist organization like ISIS continue to increase its power and control in the world or are the US and Europe going to be able to eradicate it? And does any of the two sides has the right to kill in terms of human ethics? 

Machiavellian Guantánamo Bay

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/25/us/guantanamo-prison-revolt-driven-by-inmates-despair.html

This article deals with the increasing pressure towards the executive branch of the United States to take hold of the situation within Guantánamo Bay, and to ultimately result in the swift taking down of the system. With the recent hunger strike occurring within the prison, the subject of closing it down has become hotly argued. However, with sparring between the executive and legislative branches over the matter, the initiation of such a movement has unfortunately been put to the "back-burner."

 Machiavelli argues that the moral code and obligation of a person changes as the individual works up through the ladder of politics and power. While the article states how, in many ways, the continuance of Guantánamo is decidedly unethical and not necessarily imperative, the maintenance of the prison-at the expense of the prisoners' lives and freedom-must remain in operation because of both legal ramifications and potentially adverse reactions from the international community. Therefore, as Machiavelli would argue from his writings in The Prince, the comparatively small cost of keeping the detainees imprisoned, when contrasted with the many negative implications of freeing/repatriating them, can be said to be of necessity to reduce further discontentment on a grander scale in the future.