Ethical terrorism?

  The official statement from the Biden administration is that we will remove all our troops from Afghanistan. We are leaving, never to return. But, America will still pursue those responsible for terrorism. We will use clandestine methods, launch remote strikes. In short, we will use terrorist tactics. And that begs the question, does that make us any better than the terrorists? It is a rather delicate ethical dilemma isn't it? What other methods are available to us? On the one hand you can say it is the only reasonable, logical way, to respond. Fight fire with fire! On the other hand, is terrorism ever acceptable? And how can you not call that terrorism? Labeling it retaliation, retribution or revenge does not alter the action. It really is the age old question, do the means justify the end? 

  If the end result is noble and good, then whatever method used to achieve that result would also have to be noble and good. And we tend to use that as justification for our actions. Today I heard that as an official policy of the United States. Rather shocking if you really think about it. Making a public statement that we will hunt you down and destroy you wherever, whenever and however we can is surely a terrorists threat. Fact is, if I said that publicly I could be arrested and prosecuted. The charge? Making terrorist threats! That is the reality no matter how else you look at it. If you read the Bible it is clear that the ends do not justify the means. In proverbs it says: "there is a way which seems right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." 

 Setting aside Biblical references are we really justified in conducting covert warfare? Is that the official policy of the United States going forward? Whoever we feel should be eliminated, will be eliminated. That is so even when we can not clearly identify the responsible parties. Yes if you claim responsibility I will believe you, and whatever blows reign down upon you is your own fault. But we are talking about a splinter group of a larger organization known to us as Al-Qaeda. Can we know for certain just who they are? Well, that's who we are talking about today anyway, what about tomorrow or next week. Who's making the list? 

  Now it could be pointed out that when we entered the war with Britain to gain our independence we didn't fight fair. There was shock on the part of the British that we were hiding behind trees and buildings. We were not being honorable by refusing to walk upon the battlefield in organized columns and engage the enemy! We were labeled as cowards, indeed we were called terrorists! Insurrectionists! Certainly not men of honor and principle, we were no better than the savages that had been driven from the land the colonies now occupied. And that was used as justification to "employ" those same savages to fight on the side of the British. Fighting fire with fire. For surely only other savages would know how to fight such an enemy. And now apparently we have decided that only terrorists can fight other terrorists! The quest to out terror each other has begun in earnest. Or perhaps, it is just a continuation? A dilemma as old as man himself. The battle of the righteous. 

 The moral dilemma we are faced with is the ethical use of force. That is at the heart of the second amendment. We are entitled to defend ourselves! Does that defense mean we have to wait to be attacked? If a wild animal is in the forest behind your home threatening your livestock, and possibly your children, do you have to wait for that animal to attack? Or are you justified in hunting that animal down and killing it before it can do any harm? That's the question isn't it? Is there ever an ethical use of force? We certainly glorify and admire the pacifists in history, that much is certain. Jesus Christ and Martin Luther King spring to mind. Still we admire our great Generals and combatants just as highly. As long as there cause was "just" we do. Over the centuries some have fallen from grace and others have ascended depending upon the political climate. 

  Personally I don't feel violence is ever ethical, but it is justified. Yes I believe in the second amendment and my right to defend myself, my family and my property. I will do so by all means necessary. And that is the key, necessity. Necessity is decided on an individual basis. What is necessary to preserve? Also an individual choice. The acquisition and retention of property or retaining the same is always that necessity. It is the things we refuse to relinquish that test our beliefs. A moral and ethical dilemma for certain.

  Since I first wrote this piece we have withdrawn all our troops. just not all Americans. The administration has launched two drone strikes, a little bit too late in my opinion. So, I guess the covert, not so covert operations have begun. Will the Taliban receive international recognition as the government of Afghanistan? That remains to be seen. Apparently Biden is willing enough to acknowledge their dominance. Why else would he submit to their wishes? The whole deal is one big mess. For twenty years we have had troops in Afghanistan, troops that fought and died. The blame for being there in the first place could be laid at the feet of George H Bush. He was President then. War was not declared on Afghanistan, that can only be done by Congress. Just like Korea and Vietnam, war was never officially declared. The reason? Who do you declare war on? A shadowy group of terrorists that have no territory of their own. There is no nation of Taliban! And today they are talking about a splinter group of that group, ISIS K. Is that so as not to offend the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, or ISIS? You know because we wouldn't want to offend anyone. Mustn't lump all terrorists into one group, that would be racist! All terrorists aren't the same!

  So once again we are faced with that moral and ethical dilemma. What to do? There are those that believe Christianity and Judaism, want to eliminate Islam. That is at the core of all the conflict. It always has been. It began with Mohamed after his initial teachings were rejected by his own people. But all of that is history and bears examination. Still the bottom line remains, there are those that believe they must defeat others in order to survive, to keep their faith alive.

  And that is what history is really all about. Conflict and Conquest! Peel back everything and that is what is exposed. Dominance. Win, by all means necessary. Once again the question is asked, is there honor in war? Are we justified? We are attacking ISIS K, because K is responsible for the attacks at the airport. Absolutely justified. Reports say a few civilians got blown up in the process. The report also says just a "few" hundred Americans and allies are left behind, no big deal. There are always innocents killed in wars, that is the nature of war. Mans' struggle to wage "ethical" war is done to ease the collective conscience. The taking of lives is never a good thing. But then again, some people just need killing, don't they? Can you wage ethical terrorism?