American Military Intervention Against Isis

Just war encourages peace for all people and indicates that even though it isn’t the best solution, it is still required. Everyone has the duty to stop a potentially fatal or unjust attack against someone else, even if it meant using violence against the attacker. Plus, all states have some important rights that must not be violated by either people or states, so when they’re violated or potentially getting violated, that state is entitled to defend itself through whatever means necessary. Also, the state that did the violating lost their privilege to not have their own rights violated through means of violence. Therefore, just war is ethically permissible.

Although severe consequences come with the decision of war with Iraq, most blinded United States of America citizens are still yet persuaded to support such a war. The Bush Administration has covered their schemes of war with lies to gain support. While weapons of mass destruction is supposedly the reason why the United States launched military action to begin with, all the clearly ignored consequences will haunt their final decision of war, and will remind them how the war is not and never was justified. Whither the war is for the protection of the United States and their alliances, or for oil production and the spread of democracy, the United States is only intensifying the aggression of the situation.

Since the war on Iraq began on March 20, 2003, at least 1,402 coalition troops have died and 9,326 U.S. troops have been wounded in action. This is no small number and the count grows daily. One would hope, then, that these men and women were sent to war with just cause and as a last resort. However, as the cloud of apprehension and rhetoric surrounding the war has begun to settle, it has become clear that the Bush administration relied on deeply flawed analyses to make its case for war to the United Nations and to the American people, rushing this country, and its soldiers, into war. This is not to say that this war was waged against a blameless regime or that our soldiers have died

President Obama stated in his Anti-Terror Strategy address, "We continue to face a terrorist threat. We cannot erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and that remains true today” (Obama).The Middle East today is composed of very complicated religious tensions, unstable states, and rising terrorist organizations. The collapse of central governments and the rise of powerful non-state actors breed problems that foreign powers and the world’s only superpower, simply should begin to address. Many argue that the involvement in the Middle East is not our problem and that it will only cause our national debt to increase. As human beings we must began to realize the crimes against humanity occurring in the region and ask ourselves one question, can we truly turn a blind eye to the hundreds of innocent people dying and at what cost? The United States of America must get involved in the Middle East to ensure justice is achieved and maintained. Our interference will decrease the chances of terrorist attacking U.S. soil, and our military involvement will save the lives of many innocent citizens caught up in the turmoil. The United States must protect its interests and allies in the region. America stands for freedom, justice, and dignity; we must take a stand to defend ourselves and those in need, if we truly want to uphold the

Before waging a war, it is always a good idea to think of what the possible outcome could be in the situation; to look ahead before making an unalterable, life-changing move. In many cases, different people, not just religious, think of the Just War Theory as a plausible cause to take a look at before sending troops to fight a war that deem not necessary to be fought. In the fall of 2001, September 11, it was a day in infamy, a day that will always be remembered. Terrorist members attacked the United States through different tactics, and led to an almost never ending difference between the nations. Just War is the theory that war must have a just cause, which means force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil. It must also have the right intention, which means that force may be used only for that purpose, only to correct a wrong doing. It must have legitimate authority: only public authorities and officers have the ability to wage the war. It must have comparative justice which means that the goods must outweigh the bads, no matter how bad the other side hurt you. The probability of success must weigh in to it. How it will be effected overall- how much destruction is expected, how the goods are weighed out by the bads, etc. And finally, is it a last resort. That being said, force can only be used after there have been peaceful alternatives. All of that being said, the question of the United States being sent

As of today, 6,845 Americans have died in Iraq and Afghanistan and over 900,000 Americans have been injured in both wars. (Goodman 1) Sending those troops over to these places to fight will just cause more damage. How much more lost lives does it take for the government to realize that the places they are sending these troops over to is not getting anywhere. The U.S just keeps going up a hill that never ends, instead of going up they are rolling down it. Digging a bigger hole for the U.S to get buried in. The great leaders in American history learned from the mistakes of the past. It is something we ought to remember when it comes to sending ground troops to remove the Islamic State group. Although ISIS needs to be defeated, the President should

A just war is defined as a war that is deemed as morally or theologically justifiable. One individual who shares this view is St. Thomas Aquinas, a man of theology studies, and someone with his own conditions on just war. Aquinas believes that there are three conditions that need to be met for a war to be justified. First, someone who has authority must wage war. Second, those who are attacked must be deserving of this war. Lastly, a war is only justified if it benefits the citizens. In my opinion, the U.S involvement in dealing with ISIS meets the criteria of a just war.

In the world we live in, people are consumed by violence and war as nations conflict to achieve victory and change. However, these changes come with a price, the lives of innocent people and the destruction of their homes. Because of this, massive amounts of innocent lives account for casualties. Thus, the controversy behind it causes a lot of debate between whether or not the amount of collateral damage allowed by the Rules of Engagement should be greater or lesser. Some argue that the insurgents of war the United States are fighting are only trying to camouflauge themselves among the non-combatant civilians only to get away with their crimes against us. On the other hand, the opposition argues that killing these innocent people only results in more distance in

In recent history, the United States has progressively become a more technologically advanced military with the capability to conduct war-fighting with sophisticated equipment to include robots, UAVs, Tomahawks, and nuclear warheads. These weapons are used to reduce American casualties and can be controlled from a computer on the other side of the world. Although these technologic advancements are undoubtedly impressive, hundreds of military and civilian leaders have argued over the morality of using these weapons to accomplish mission success. However, The United States’ increasing reliance on technology and unmanned weapon systems is morally and ethically acceptable under the Just War’s Jus

In President Barack Obama’s speech addressing the action taken in Libya, he said that the United States reserves the right to unilaterally use military force to address direct threats to "our people, our homeland, our allies, and our core interests" (Morici). To save the collapsing rebellion, air attacks had to target Gadhafi’s tanks, artillery, motorized columns, and government installations (Hanson). The problem that Congress faces is the question of whether unilateral action is constitutional. Unilateral action

President Bush invaded Iraq (going against the wishes of many other countries) based off of the thought that they had nuclear weapons and were planning to give them to terrorists, but he was mistaken. Even though the war may have been fought eventually either way, the fact that they were wrong about the main reason for the strike is worrisome. Preemptive strikes should only be carried out when countries have undeniable, hard proof that an enemy is going to stage a powerful attack immediately. In this part in the fragile study of war ethics, no matter what the fight is about, the end must always justify the means. Because the preemptive strike was not just, I do not fully believe that the Iraq War was just, especially with the escalations in violence as it went on. As for the Afghanistan War, it is harder for me to decide whether or not it is just. We initially officially attacked because of the September 11, 2001 attack, but our actions during the war (such as the large number of civilian deaths, the abuse against Afghans, and the slow reconstruction efforts) were decidedly not just. It is more difficult to decide which of these conflicts are the most honorable. I do believe that both of these wars had a more just cause than the Vietnam War, because we actually had significant reasons to start thee conflicts, not just some need to contain and control another country. I do not, however, believe we had just authority. In fact, I believe that the “levels” of just authority are about the same when it comes to these three conflicts. The just intention is a bit harder to figure out as well, because even though the combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been formally ended, there are still thousands of troops in both countries. Although the United States has technically completed our original mission, we are

One of the largest decisions that the United States has faced under President Obama's reign has been what to do about the apparent and impending threat of the Islamic Nation. In fact many view many of the Islamic States actions as intentionally manipulated military strike aimed at provoking the United States into intervening Middle Eastern affairs. Their message is blatantly apparent through the strategic military strike upon the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, thus forcing the United States into defending their alliance with the Kurdistan nation. This strategic chess move has great advantages towards in a variety of circumstances for the Islamic Nation because any other decision other than military intervention would result in the advancement

In an attempt to tackle the ethical and moral issues with the question of whether or not to sanction an armed effort to defend against terrorism, the Church very often referred back to its received normative ethical framework for the justification of war, namely the Just War theory. The pope used Just War Theory as an argument against the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. At the same time, five leading evangelical Christian leaders outlined their support for the invasion in what is know as the Land

Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.

The radical Islamic terrorist organization, recently re-titled “the Islamic State”, has existed under several names since the 1990s. Its history is an epic of how modern terrorism progressed from a religious and political ideal into an obliterating cult. The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) is a properly-armed group that is a threat to the global security. ISIS, whose merciless members delight in murdering innocent people, must be destroyed before its fanatical followers carry out further genocides. There is an ongoing debate on whether the United States ought to take stronger military actions against the extremist organization, ISIS, or not. Supposing that the United State does not act