Another day, another beheading, this time of a British citizen, Alan Henning. ISIS has threatened to kill an former US Army Ranger, Peter Kassig, next.
Obviously, this kind of brutality prompts an emotional and visceral response from everyone who hears about it. ISIS is a group of fanatical, violent, and above all evil men who have no moral restraint of their horrific acts. There is nothing to salvage, to negotiate with, or to understand. They have abandoned any pretense of human decency in favor of unfettered depravity. This is unquestionably true.
What, then, shall the United States and the civilized West do? What is our responsibility as a nation in the face of such unabashed evil? What kind and degree of threat does ISIS pose to our country, our culture, and humanity at large?
Well, I'm not going to presume to be able to answer those. I have thought about them quite a bit, though, and I hope that, if I haven't arrived at answers, I've at least determined some of the proper questions.
The most pressing issue is the prospect of military response. We've already committed to airstrikes and certain detachments of personnel ("boots on the ground" rhetorical maneuvering aside), which we have yet to classify as a war (as evidenced by the administration's avoidance of the term and the lack of congressional approval thus far). There's an important issue of executive authority at stake, one that I'll refrain from addressing for now. My current question: should we, the United States, declare and wage war on ISIS?
That "should" makes this question tricky. The emotional response I've seen (and felt) is that, yes, we should obliterate these monsters from the face of the earth. Why wait and allow them to kill more people? It seems simple: they're evil, we need to be good, and if we do nothing, evil will prevail.
If it only it were so easily determined. Our nation was built largely on a foundation of natural law theory, which (to unsatisfactorily summarize) dictates that a nation is responsible for protecting its (its citizens') life, liberty, and property. If another party attacks or imminently threatens these, the nation, like the individual, is allowed (and, indeed, obligated under the social contract) to use force in response. Again, seems simple: we defend ourselves, and that's the only tolerable use of force on another nation or party.
Yet, when theory goes into practice, such lines blur. What constitutes a real and actionable "threat" to our country? Must we wait until we have actually been attacked and our lives lost before we can use force? Is the potential of attack (such as the buildup of military force in range of our citizens) enough to justify war? Is stated or discovered (by espionage, perhaps) intent to attack us enough? Some combination of the two?
In the present matter of ISIS, we do have some facts: they have stated their intent to kill us ("We will raise the flag of Allah in the White House"), and they have killed our citizens (in public beheadings). From this, one could make a case for use of military force. There is one more factor, though: ISIS's ability to actually carry out their threats. Though they call themselves an Islamic State, they do not have the normal characteristics of a nation-state that we might declare war upon. They hold cities as tactical locations more than as home territory, they do not have demarcated borders, they do not have a traditional military. As such, they do not have similar capabilities of war to, say, Russia or China. Their equipment and arms are stolen, not produced. They use what's available rather than what a factory can churn out. Their scope and power, then, has estimable limits.
Then again, such unconventional violent actors are hard to predict, as 9/11 showed us. What is the risk of another suicide attack? Could ISIS fighters infiltrate or seize airplanes and attack us? Could they acquire biological weapons, cyber-warfare capabilities, or other means with which to harm us? Even in such cases, are they really capable of amassing enough power to actually conquer our capital and fly their flag above it?
Considering I don't work for the CIA, I can't really answer those questions. Nor can any average citizen with any reasonable certainty. With such issues, I don't believe there is any completely correct answer or any perfect response we can find. We can argue about principles of non-intervention and self-defense, but when push comes to shove, do any of us really, truly, with complete confidence, know what to do?
No. Of course not. Anyone that says otherwise is lying.
What I will say on the matter is that, whatever our approach ends up being, I want it to be based solely on the protection of out citizens' lives. All decisions must flow from that principle. That could include many things: helping allies that are in a position to protect us, taking preemptive action on individual ISIS threats, or even avoiding military action for the sake of keeping soldiers out of danger. Whatever we do, it needs to be with the aim of minimizing our loss of life.
Ultimately, that's what our government is for. We've voted for representatives and executives and told them: "Protect us. Protect our lives, liberty, and property. That's your job."
I just hope they do it well.
