War! What is it good for?

Recently a friend of mine linked me a video justifying terrorism. Or at the least explaining how terrorism may be justified. It was from a Bollywood movie I think. The arguments aren't sound and very sensationalist so I won't waste your time by linking it here. (The response by one of the characters for "Explain 9/11" was a comparison of how more people died in the Afghan bombings by the USA as compared to the World Trade Centre. The explanation for an event happened after the event. Although to his credit, his point was that Afghanistan suffered more. An arguably valid point to make by itself, though not as a response/explanation of 9/11.) In any event, the question that bugged me the most was "Is terrorism wrong?" Or rather more accurately, are acts of terrorism which target civilians wrong? Of course, the thing is that when the USA invaded the Middle East, there were civilians which were injured as well. There has also been considerable debate about whether civilians were actually targeted as hostile elements in the battlefield.

Sometimes we react very strongly especially when death is involved. We tend to either support what we already believe in or we end up diametrically opposed to what believe in. Rather unfortunately, life does not always fit our thought paradigms. Sometimes innocuous questions lead us down a slippery path and we slip into thought processes which aren't so ideal. "Is terrorism wrong?" is one of them. Ask around, there will probably only be two answers. Either people think terrorism is not morally justified or they think that it is. The reasons are plenty for why it isn't, and significantly less for why it is.

Rather more specifically though, there have been those who think the 9/11 attacks were unjustified, and those who think it was justified, or at least understandable. I've read through both sides and I'm not going to prime your mind towards any particular side, so make your own decision on that. The point I will make however, is that I think both sides are failing to see the bigger picture. Political scientists and historians have come together to debate on this. Philosophers as well, in a rather detached and slightly irrelevant manner as is befitting; debating whether it can be justified, instead of whether it actually is. If we examine the facts of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I think both sides can agree that the US set events in motion which led up to it. The problem is pinpointing where the fault lies. With the US? For meddling in the affairs of the Middle East? Or with Al Qaeda? Who unilaterally attacked the US? General sentiment seems to be that either US or Al Qaeda is wrong, although some might be inclined to think they both did something wrong.

What I don't seem to understand is this idea that someone did something wrong. Here we have an unpleasant situation, that of terrorism. And rather strangely (or interestingly), the question is primed in such a way that we seek out someone to blame. "Is terrorism wrong?" Granted, not everyone asked themselves this question, but if you ever did or have ever been asked this question, did you stop to think why the question was formulated in such a manner? It seems like a perfectly innocuous question. It seems disguised as an ethical issue. "Is terrorism wrong?", "Can it be morally justified?" Why are we seeking to know if it can be morally justified? Why do we seek to know if we can blame someone for this? Inherent in the question is the idea that someone 'should have known better than to do this'. Why should someone have known better?

I don't think anyone has done right, we're definitely not right. The fact that the world isn't a peaceful place where we can take planes without fear is good reason to think that we didn't get it right. However, it doesn't mean that we're wrong either. It doesn't mean we made a mistake. I think we need to discard the narrow, dichotomous thought paradigm. Yes, the US didn't do the best of jobs when they were in the Middle East, yes, Al Qaeda didn't make the best decision when they decided to go ahead with 9/11. But they weren't wrong. They weren't right, but they weren't wrong either. Each was doing what they could within their capacity to attain 'happiness'/their ideals for themselves, and they came into conflict. Does this mean we endorse terrorism? No, like I said, Al Qaeda isn't right. They didn't make the best of decisions, but that doesn't make them wrong. They had good justifications for acting this way, even though they may not have had the best of reasons. I think the same applies for the US. It was probably not the best idea to meddle in the Middle East. But I don't think it was wrong to do so.

I do not think that we can carry over the moral gauge/compass that we use for criminals during peacetime onto this protracted 'war against terror'. Here we have an enemy that is so integrated with the civilian population that the old adage of targeting only military personnel no longer works simply because the enemy is not a military. And what terrorists are doing are very similar from the violent revolutions that have rocked the world. The desire for change and their belief in their cause is so strong it leads them to violence. Neither are the best of actions, but they're not wrong either. We would have to radically re-think our conception of 'wrong'. Something is not wrong simply by virtue of it not being right.

If we have a moral system, then perhaps we can adjudicate who was morally wrong, although getting people to agree on the same moral system presents another problem. However, what I do want to highlight is that the thought paradigm that there is something INHERENTLY wrong with the 9/11 attacks is flawed. The thought that there is someone that is to be blamed for it, or that there is someone who made a mistake is flawed. What we've done isn't right, but it isn't wrong either. Sure, we don't live in the most perfect of worlds, sure, shit happens all over the world. That doesn't mean we made a mistake. Just as the world is flawed in so many ways, it is also precious and valuable in many ways as well.