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?
You last question is really a powerful line! Firstly I would argue following your discussion that violence embodies the weakness. However more extreme in this case, I think they give up the power of persuasion. Instead ISIS just wants to take direct action of violence. Moreover, by noting the argument from the early material that we discuss in class, Hobbes and Locke, though they are slightly different, killing in war of justice and defensing oneself is ethical. Thus the fightback of France will be justified. Actually they did send 10 fighter jets to bomb ISIS yesterday. What's important, I think public is actually positive about that.
ReplyDeleteThe simple fact that ISIS is a terrorist group and is as a result more likely than not to never resort to any type of diplomatic negotiation certainly throws a wrench into whatever a conventional approach might entail. Part of the problem is alternately because of the illegitimate violence (arguably) utilized by the group, though this particular view may not be entirely universal either. I hesitate to think that these terrible attacks will help the terrorist organization to gain any more traction in regards to followers, though the fear that they intend to spread may unfortunately be increased (which is in all probability their main objective). However, I would absolutely agree that France should be justified to take action, though that may be my bias because I agree that this recent strike ought to be viewed as an act of war.
ReplyDeleteIf viewed through Clauswitz's lens (in which "war is politics by other means), then I think that war is a sign of weakness, as the people declaring war failed to use regular politics to get what they wanted. However, if you use Foucault's view ("politics is war by other means), then war is a sign of strength, as war is the natural state of things, and using what we think of as traditional "politics" are actually a failure of war. It's all a matter of perspective.
ReplyDelete