Author: Justin Pavoni

If we want to get to a world where terrorism isn’t such a regular tragedy, governments need to start recognizing the fact that the so-called “War on Terror” is a self-fulfilling prophecy destined to foment one thing and one thing only: more terrorism.

The Big Picture: The problem arising in the wake of the recent mass-murder event in Paris and the subsequent French bombing of the Islamic State (also a mass-murder event) is that the two acts (and hundreds like them) serve as justification for more of the same from the other side. They provide fuel for each other’s fire and the situation, not surprisingly, continues to metastasize.

The great paradox at play is that as the West continues to attack the Islamic State, the organization’s appeal continues to grow among those who view the West as an adversary. Nobody knows exactly what causes radicalization but my best guess is that its appeal will continue to increase as the West continues to respond to violent events with exponentially more violence in turn. Such has been the trend thus far.

Why Terrorism? Terrorism is likely to spawn from a number of things, such as a bankrupt ideology, a sense of injustice, and disenfranchisement with the status quo. Regardless of the exact origins in any particular case, there are two primary reasons that the “war on terror” will continue to fail (assuming the goal is to reduce the number of terrorist attacks and the rampant increase in radicalization). Reason #1: Western violence (the principal prescription for fighting terrorism) is also the primary motivation behind successful terrorist recruiting efforts. Reason #2: Western attempts to overthrow heads of state under the guise of fighting terrorism provide an incredible opportunity for terrorist organizations to take root in a more institutional fashion. Let’s discuss these two phenomena in more depth.

Continue reading “Two Reasons The ‘War on Terror’ Will Always Fail”

1. Sound Moral Ideas:

Rational arguments for peaceful behavior in specific situations. Want to hear my rational argument against the war on terror? Read here. In order to form an opinion on any one particular issue it is useful to have a rational moral framework from which to start. Although I am of the opinion that morality, like all human behavior, is based on subjective value judgments, it is my belief that people of faith and those of secular morality can more or less get behind the following two concepts:

• The Non-Aggression Principle: I like to call this rule the “silver” rule after it’s more popularized cousin the “golden” rule. Contrary to the golden rule, however, the silver rule does not tell you what to do. It simply tells you what NOT to do. What is the rule, you ask? “Do not initiate violence against another person or their justly acquired property.” This is synonymous with saying: “don’t murder, don’t steal, and don’t commit fraud.” Without getting nuanced in theory I think it’s fair to say that most people recognize the moral legitimacy of this concept and generally behave accordingly in their personal lives.
• The Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” This is a cult classic for a good reason: it invokes the moral supremacy of what Mohatma Gandhi termed “the still voice within.” The thing that in my opinion is most important to understand about the golden rule is that it is non-coercive and individual. Doing what you believe to be the right thing does not mean coercing others to do what you think to be the right thing. After all, you wouldn’t want others to impose their version of “right” on you by force. There is a big difference between acting on conscience and mandating behavior for others. That is also why Gandhi told us to “be the change you want to see in the world.” Remember that we all have our own conscience, our own experiences, and our own understanding of the world. We will not always see eye-to-eye with one another. It is in these situations where I believe we should all always act on our conscience (follow the “golden” rule) so long as it is not expanding outside the framework of the non-aggression principle (the “silver” rule).

2. A Decrease in Attitudes That Tolerate or Glorify Violence:

Harvard University psychologist Steven Pinker points out in an essay entitled The History of Violence that “the decline of violent behavior has been paralleled by a decline in attitudes that tolerate or glorify violence, and often the attitudes are in the lead.”

Continue reading “Seven Strategies for Less War”

5 Truths

Truth #1: "We have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland." This is an extremely important admission to understand. If there is no specific plot against America then America must by definition be acting preemptively to wage war on the organization known as the "Islamic State." Whether you think that is a good thing or a bad thing, it is by definition, the truth.

Truth #2:"ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria and the broader Middle East." This is undoubtedly true. If American politicians wanted to combat such a threat, it would make sense to cooperate with the governments of both Iraq and Syria. The fact that the United States has thus far absolutely refused to cooperate with the government of Syria should make you search for underlying motivations for American intervention that are perhaps less obvious.

Truth #3:"Last month I ordered our [the American] military to take targeted action [to drop bombs] against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then we’ve conducted over 150 successful airstrikes on Iraq." This is undoubtedly true. The questions Americans should ask themselves are both procedural and moral. First, what procedures are used to authorize such action? Second, are there any transparent principles that unilaterally apply when deciding to exercise the use of violent force? Third, is the use of violent force morally justified in these circumstances?

Continue reading “Obama’s ISIL Speech: Five Truths, Four Lies, and a Potential War Crime”

If anyone wants to know what Afghanistan will look like whenever the United States finally gives up its meaningless occupation, take one look at Iraq. After 24 years of perpetual American war in Iraq – an invasion, a decade long no-fly zone, international sanctions, a second invasion, an occupation, the overthrow of a dictator and the installation of a puppet democracy – Iraq is anything but stable. Is this really any surprise? Over the past few months the international community has watched a group of Islamic thugs (ISIS) completely overrun the artificial Baghdad government, take possession of millions of dollars’ worth of American-made war material, and stage a number of gruesome public executions. The fact that there are people in the world who behave in such ways is a disgusting tragedy, but the chain of events that has led to such an outcome got a running start with the perpetual meddling in the region. The same recipe has been brewing in Afghanistan for the last 13 years and I expect that whenever the United States finally turns over the country to its inhabitants, parallel chaos will not be far behind it.

When you step off the plane at Bagram Air Base in Northern Afghanistan the first thing you notice (besides the mountains) are the sheer numbers of permanent structures, the hundreds of tons of concrete, and the immense inventory of Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicles that now litter the ground. Tent city and many of the plywood basic huts have long been replaced by rows of three-story steel buildings and permanent structures – what a difference a decade makes! Without question, the present situation is night and day from that of the horse soldiers whose original intent was at least morally justifiable – capture the man allegedly behind September 11^th – Osama Bin Laden. Although the second invasion of Iraq sidelined the search for half a decade, it has now been more than three years since Bin Laden was executed and the continued American presence makes one wonder when the referendum on making Afghanistan the 51^st state will be. So why hasn’t the United States left and what happens if the United States government ever does decide to come home?

Continue reading “Iraq: A Mirror for Afghanistan’s Future”