From just war to unjust war?
analysis
Observing the war against terrorism in the United States and Afghanistan from afar is both disadvantageous and advantageous.It is disadvantageous because it is difficult to more or less correctly gauge the spirit, morale, resolve, temper, mood and sentiment of both sides of the combatants. Although these psychological elements of war are intangible and abstract to the empirical and mathematical minds, they are critical determinants of victory and defeat in all armed conflicts.
However, distance also affords detached observers the advantage of seeing what partisans and emotional watchers on the ground, or in the field, could possibly not see and feel. Given proven or confirmed information and good intention, distant observers may be useful in providing more independent and critical feedback, as well as a second opinion.
For example, in their seemingly impatient race against time to defeat their enemies, both the strategic planners in the United States as well as the US armed forces in Afghanistan may not take the consequences of the bombing of the structure and compound of the International Red Cross in Kabul very seriously, even though it has occurred twice within a week.
No satisfactory explanation
True, the incidents have been duly and honestly acknowledged by the legitimate and competent authorities in the United States but without satisfactory explanation and public apology given to the international community, the original justice of the cause of prosecuting the war might be eroded.
The more such damages to humanitarian structures are inflicted, for whatever reasons, the more unjust the war would become in the public opinion of the international community, particularly in the Islamic and Third World. Over a longer run, an originally just war might eventually be transformed into an unjust one.
It is the same with reports of the increasing number of civilian casualities, the plight of refugees, especially poor children.
Another issue that seems to have caught the attention of the international community is the confirmed use of the highly destructive cluster bombs. It was the use of weapons of similar nature, like agent orange and napalm bombs by the United States during the later stage of the Vietnam War, that shocked the conscience of the world. Normal people all over the world may justly ask what then is the difference between terrorists and the armed forces of the United States and its allies?
Proportionality and discrimination
Strategic planners and tactical commanders of the US armed forces and its allies must always remember that the two paramount principles governing a just conduct of war or jus in bello are proportionality (of the forces of self-defence and retaliation vis-a-vis the forces of aggression) and discrimination (of targets).
To observe the principles of proportionality and discrimination in the conduct of war is important not just to satisfy a few philosophers but the public opinions and conscience of normal human beings, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, all over the world. No modern nation could truly win a war, however just its original cause, if public conscience is disturbed and public opinions shocked by the unjust conduct of war. Vietnam should serve as a good lesson.
Ramadan
A third issue that should be given serious attention and consideration is whether the US and its allies should suspend the bombing campaign during the fasting month of the Muslims starting in a fortnight. The Ramadan is a holy month for all Muslims just like the Christmas season is to many in the West and East, and should be respected by a suspension of armed actions on the part of the US and its allies, if the image of "a war against Islam" is not to become popular and "confirmed" in the minds of Muslims.
It is disadvantageous because it is difficult to more or less correctly gauge the spirit, morale, resolve, temper, mood and sentiment of both sides of the combatants. Although these psychological elements of war are intangible and abstract to the empirical and mathematical minds, they are critical determinants of victory and defeat in all armed conflicts.
However, distance also affords detached observers the advantage of seeing what partisans and emotional watchers on the ground, or in the field, could possibly not see and feel. Given proven or confirmed information and good intention, distant observers may be useful in providing more independent and critical feedback, as well as a second opinion.
For example, in their seemingly impatient race against time to defeat their enemies, both the strategic planners in the United States as well as the US armed forces in Afghanistan may not take the consequences of the bombing of the structure and compound of the International Red Cross in Kabul very seriously, even though it has occurred twice within a week.
No satisfactory explanation
True, the incidents have been duly and honestly acknowledged by the legitimate and competent authorities in the United States but without satisfactory explanation and public apology given to the international community, the original justice of the cause of prosecuting the war might be eroded.
The more such damages to humanitarian structures are inflicted, for whatever reasons, the more unjust the war would become in the public opinion of the international community, particularly in the Islamic and Third World. Over a longer run, an originally just war might eventually be transformed into an unjust one.
It is the same with reports of the increasing number of civilian casualities, the plight of refugees, especially poor children.
Another issue that seems to have caught the attention of the international community is the confirmed use of the highly destructive cluster bombs. It was the use of weapons of similar nature, like agent orange and napalm bombs by the United States during the later stage of the Vietnam War, that shocked the conscience of the world. Normal people all over the world may justly ask what then is the difference between terrorists and the armed forces of the United States and its allies?
Proportionality and discrimination
Strategic planners and tactical commanders of the US armed forces and its allies must always remember that the two paramount principles governing a just conduct of war or jus in bello are proportionality (of the forces of self-defence and retaliation vis-a-vis the forces of aggression) and discrimination (of targets).
To observe the principles of proportionality and discrimination in the conduct of war is important not just to satisfy a few philosophers but the public opinions and conscience of normal human beings, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, all over the world. No modern nation could truly win a war, however just its original cause, if public conscience is disturbed and public opinions shocked by the unjust conduct of war. Vietnam should serve as a good lesson.
Ramadan
A third issue that should be given serious attention and consideration is whether the US and its allies should suspend the bombing campaign during the fasting month of the Muslims starting in a fortnight. The Ramadan is a holy month for all Muslims just like the Christmas season is to many in the West and East, and should be respected by a suspension of armed actions on the part of the US and its allies, if the image of "a war against Islam" is not to become popular and "confirmed" in the minds of Muslims.
However, it is also the moral duty and responsibility of Islamic leaders all over the world to call on and to ensure the Taliban regime and all its combatants observe temporary ceasefire or suspension of armed conflicts during Ramadan and Christmas to provide psychological security to the armed forces of US and its allies which might fear that their 'unilateral kindness' would be reciprocated by 'terroristic' wickedness on the part of the Taliban.
Both Ramadan and Christmas should be seasons of goodwill and peace, of mercy and compassion, and of forgiveness on all sides.
Footnote: Should the war on terrorism be conceptualised as a new Cold War? Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM) have found 10 solid reasons to caution against the simplistic adoption of a Cold War Paradigm. Read them in [#1]Analysis Malaysia[/#].
JAMES WONG WING ON is chief analyst of Strategic Analysis Malaysia (SAM) which produces the subscriber-based political report, Analysis Malaysia. James is a former member of parliament (1990-1995) and a former columnist for the Sin Chew Jit Poh Chinese daily. He read political science and economics at the Monash University in Melbourne, Australia. While in Sin Chew, he and a team of journalists won the top awards of Malaysian Press Institute (MPI) for 1998 and 1999.
