Is it justified to attack states and overturn regimes to get at terrorists?

Discussion 1: Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 1 in the Martin (2016) text. To check your understanding of the material required for this discussion, you may wish to access the quizzes and flash card activities on the companion website for the Martin text.

In Martin’s discussion, “The Just War Doctrine,” lays out several questions first published by the Christian Science Monitor (Scott, 2001) in this article Tyson, 2001 lays out six questions:

Is it justified to attack states and overturn regimes to get at terrorists? Can the United States legitimately target political figures like Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar? What are U.S. obligations in terms of minimizing civilian casualties? What types of force should be used? When should U.S. forces take prisoners, rather than killing Afghan Troops? Is there a plan for peace? (Martin, 2016, p. 9) Select one of the questions above and address it based on “The Just War Doctrine” as discussed by Martin. You must argue the issue from the perspective of the U.S. government or a sovereign nation such as Afghanistan or Iraq. Support your post with examples from required materials, scholarly sources, or official government sources.

Your initial post must be a minimum of 600 words for discussion one. Use APA formatting to cite your sources in-text as well as at the end of your post.

Guided Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum.

In Martin’s discussion of “The Just War Doctrine” he states:

In the modern era, both dissidents and states have adapted the just war tradition to their political environments. Anti-state conflict and reprisals by states are commonplace. Dissidents always consider their cause just and their methods proportional to the force used by the agents of their oppressors. (2016, p. 8).

From the perspective of a terrorist or dissident group, evaluate your classmates’ posts and present a counter-argument or different perspective using “The Just War Doctrine.” As you review your colleagues’ posts, look at this issue from the opposite perspective. How does your perspective change based on which side you present – sovereign nation or dissident group? How does “The Just War Doctrine” impact the current war on terrorism being waged by the United States and with international terrorist organizations such as Hamas or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, (ISIL)? Are the current attacks against civilian targets by terrorists in Paris and San Bernardino justified using “The Just War Doctrine”?

Discussion 2: Prior to beginning work on this discussion, read Chapter 2 in Martin (2016) and Reading 3, “The Study of Terrorism: Definitional Problems,” in Capron & Mizrahi (2016).

Over the last 20 years terrorism has touched everyone in one way or another. If you have not been directly impacted by a terrorist event, you have been touched by the security measures put in place to help secure us from terrorism. In Chapter 2 of his text, Martin lays out the complexities of defining terrorism. He states:

The effort to formally define terrorism is a critical one because government antiterrorist policy calculations must be based on criteria that determine whether a violent incident is an act of terrorism. Governments and policy makers must piece together the elements of terrorist behavior and demarcate the factors that distinguish terrorism from other forms of conflict. (2016, p. 27)

Interestingly, there is no universal definition of terrorism; The UN has no internationally-agreed upon definition of terrorism. Even within our government there is no one definition. In fact, the Department of Defense, the Department of State, and the Federal Bureau of Investigations have distinct definitions. (See “Defining Terrorism in the United States” in Martin.)

When we look at an event such as the 2015 Paris attacks, we can all say it was terrorism. However, we have to ask ourselves why it is so difficult to define terrorism. Review the definitions of terrorism from various U.S. agencies as set forth in Martin’s text as you address the following in your initial post:

What are the critical elements (such as politically motivated, or violence, or type of target) that are included in this definition on terrorism? Why was this definition crafted with these specific elements? How does it impact current policy from the perspective of these distinct U.S. agencies? What are the benefits to having a narrow definition versus a broad definition? Your initial post must be a minimum of 600 words in length for discussion 2. Support your post with examples from required materials, scholarly sources, or official government sources. Use APA formatting to cite your sources in-text as well as at the end of your post.

Guided Response: Review several of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your peers by 11:59 p.m. on Day 7 of the week. You are encouraged to post your required replies earlier in the week to promote more meaningful and interactive discourse in this discussion forum. After reading “The Study of Terrorism: Definitional Problems” in Capron & Mizrahi (2016), address the following elements:

Compare and contrast your classmates’ definitions with another definition of terrorism. What elements are missing from these definitions that are found in other definitions? What types of events would not be considered a terrorist event using your classmates’ definitions? Reviewing your colleagues’ posts and taking into account that there are differing definitions, why is it so hard for states to come to an agreement on a single definition of terrorism? Please continue to monitor the discussion forum until 5:00 p.m. on Day 7, and respond with robust dialogue to anyone who replies to your initial post.