Misreading Islamist Terrorism: The "War Against Terrorism" and Just-War Theory

Abstract: The Bush administration's military war on terrorism is a blunt, ineffective, and unjust response to the threat posed to innocent civilians by terrorism. Decentralized terrorist networks can only be effectively fought by international cooperation among police and intelligence agencies representing diverse nation‐states, including ones with predominantly Islamic populations. The Bush administration's allegations of a global Islamist terrorist threat to the national interests of the United States misread the decentralized and complex nature of Islamist politics. Undoubtedly there exists a “combat fundamentalist” element within Islamism. But the threat posed to U.S. citizens by Islamist terrorism neither necessitates nor justifies as a response massive military invasions of other nations. Not only does the Bush administration's war on alleged “terrorist states” violate the doctrine of just war, but in addition these wars arise from a new, unilateral, imperial foreign‐policy doctrine of “preventive wars.” Such a doctrine will isolate the United States from international institutions and long‐standing allies. The weakening of these institutions and alliances will only weaken the ability of the international community to deter terrorism.     

Reasons for Conflict: Political Implications of a Definition of Terrorism

This essay analyzes the U.S. political situation before the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ties this conflict to the events of 9/11. The guiding thread of the discussion is the definition of “terrorism” that has led to George W. Bush's declared “war on terrorism.” By means of Hegel's dialectic logic, the essay exposes the problem offered by the category of causality involved in the definition of terrorism: Is terrorism the original “cause” of the war declared on it by the United States (as the Bush administration claims) or is terrorism rather the very “consequence” of that war?     

Releasing the Self: The Healing Legacy of Heinz Kohut

Paradoxically, the more powerful the USA has become the more that paranoia seems to mark its relation to itself and to others. In this article we argue that there is a connection between its denial of its own destructiveness, self-idealization expressed in the belief that America represents the end point of the civilizing process towards which all other societies are drawn, and the paranoid conviction that an enemy Other (communism, Islam) aims to corrupt or destroy ‘God's chosen people’. First Vietnam and now September 11th inflicted grievous injuries upon this narcissism and we suggest that the invasion of Iraq can be considered as an indication that the USA has failed to ‘work through’ this trauma, instead it has sought to reassert an imaginary omniscience. Just as the destruction of the Twin Towers was the breaking through of the Real upon the Imaginary, so the ‘Real’ war in Iraq has begun after the ‘Imaginary’ war was declared ‘over’ by Bush.     

“LOVE YOUR ENEMIES”: USURY,CITIZENSHIP AND THE FRIEND‐ENEMY DISTINCTION

Through an analysis of the Scriptural treatment of usury, a constructive theological analysis of the question of the friend‐enemy distinction as a political category, its relationship to a Christian conception of universalism as determined by being in Christ, and the nature of faithful citizenship is forged. This essay argues that usury is a paradigmatic instance of the friend‐enemy distinction as defined by Carl Schmitt and as such is primarily a political act. The article closes by analysing Schmitt's reading of Jesus’ commandment to love enemies and suggests that after Christ, the friend‐enemy distinction ceases to be political and becomes missiological instead. The implication of this missiological conception is then related back to the on‐going question of usury.     

The impact of the American War on Terror on Malaysian Islam

This essay provides an introductory discussion of the impact of the American war on terrorism on Malaysia, a Muslim country with a long record of parliamentary democracy and one of the most developed in the Muslim world. With a discussion of a possible decades-long US military and political engagement with the Muslim world as a background, the essay presents a detailed account of the impact of the US wars in Afghanistan, the Philippines and Iraq on Malaysian national politics, particularly on its political Islam. It is argued that the war on terrorism has benefited Mahathir Mohamad, helping to reverse his declining political fortunes following his sacking of Anwar Ibrahim as his deputy, which influenced his retirement from politics. The essay explains the reasons, external and domestic, for Malaysia's participation in the global war on terrorism and the extent of its involvement, including its leadership role in anti-terrorism in the Muslim world. It also discusses the views of Mahathir and Anwar on the roots of Muslim terrorism and what it will take to overcome this problem. Both believe the resolution of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is crucial to the defeat of terrorism in the Muslim world. The essay concludes with an examination of the possibility of Malaysia entering a new phase in its war on terrorism as Abdullah Badawi, Mahathir's successor, and Anwar appear to have convergent views on political Islam and on the importance of democracy as a tool to fight terrorism.     

Selfishness and capitalism 1

Richard Schmitt's case against the psychological defense of capitalism (Inquiry, Vol. 16, No. 2) has merit, but in stating it he attributes to a defender of capitalism the argument that capitalism suits people's innate selfishness. The position more plausibly attributed to the author in question is not only resistant to Schmitt's own arguments but is worth consideration in itself.     

External Freedom in Kant's Rechtslehre: Political,Metaphysical1

External freedom is the central good protected in Kant's legal and political philosophy. But external freedom is perplexing, being at once freedom of spatio‐temporal movement and a form of noumenal or ‘intelligible’freedom. Moreover, it turns out that identifying impairments to external freedom nearly always involves recourse to an elaborated system of positive law, which seems to compromise external freedom's status as a prior, organizing good. Drawing heavily on Kant's understanding of the role of empirical ‘anthropological’information in constructing a Doctrine of Right, or Rechtslehre, this essay offers an interpretation of external freedom that makes sense of its simultaneous spatio‐temporality, dependence on positive law, intelligibility (or ‘noumenality’), and a priority. The essay suggests that this account of Kantian external freedom has implications both for politics and for the metaphysics of everyday objects and institutions.     

JUST WAR THEORY,HUMANITARIAN INTERVENTION,AND THE NEED FOR A DEMOCRATIC FEDERATION

The primary purpose of government is to secure public goods that cannot be achieved by free markets. The Coordination Principle tells us to consolidate sovereign power in a single institution to overcome collective action problems that otherwise prevent secure provision of the relevant public goods. There are several public goods that require such coordination at the global level, chief among them being basic human rights. The claim that human rights require global coordination is supported in three main steps. First, I consider Pogge's and Habermas's analyses as alternatives to Hobbesian conceptions of justice. Second, I consider the core conventions of international law, which are in tension with the primacy of state sovereignty in the UN system. Third, I argue that the just war tradition does not limit just causes for war to self‐defense; it supports saving innocent third parties from crimes against humanity as a just reason for war. While classical authors focused less on this issue, the point is especially clear in twentieth‐century just war theories, such as those offered by the American Catholic bishops, Jean Elshtain, Brian Orend, and Michael Walzer. Against Walzer, I argue that we add intractable military tyranny to the list of horrors meriting intervention if other ad bellum conditions are met. But these results require us to reexamine the “just authority” of first resort to govern such interventions. The Coordination Principle implies that we should create a transnational federation with consolidated powers in place of a treaty organization requiring near‐unanimity. But to be legitimate, such a global institution must also be directly answerable to the citizens of its member states. While the UN Security Council is inadequate on both counts, a federation of democracies with a directly elected executive and legislature could meet both conditions.     

Confucian Views on War as Seen in the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Gongyang Commentary on the Spring and Autumn Annals</Emphasis>

This essay explores Confucian views on war as seen in the Spring and Autumn Annals. The interpretation is based mainly on the Gongyang Zhuan, supplemented by other authoritative sources in the Gongyang tradition, such as Dong Zhongshu (179-104 BCE) and He Xiu (129-182). The Spring and Autumn Annals contains three components: facts, words, and principles. This essay explicates the principles for going to war and the principles for conducting a war. The Confucian perspective sheds light on war against enemies of civilization, conditions for waging a preemptive war, punitive expedition, as well as the use of weapons of mass destruction. The Confucian views as presented here are realistic and pragmatic in nature but are also compatible with the humanistic concern of Confucianism. This essay ends with a summary of the salient and sophisticated features of the Confucian views on war.     

“Never Again War”

This essay addresses the complexities of the Roman Catholic position on war by evaluating recent documentary evidence, attending to the contemporary challenges of terrorism and humanitarian interventions. It presents two arguments. First, attending to traditional Catholic resources for assessing war, papal criticism of recent military action, and debates about a recent shift in Catholic just war logic, this essay argues that Catholic teaching on war has undergone a repositioning in a pacifist direction. Second, it contends that recent critiques of this shift in position by scholars such as George Weigel and James Turner Johnson, however, are wrong to categorize this a “functional pacifism.” Though a development from within just war theory and pacifist reasoning, the Church's new stance does not operate as a type of pacifism, allowing too many possibilities for justified armed conflict to be labeled as “functional” pacifism. The essay concludes by examining the traditional Catholic theological commitments that place limits on any movement toward pacifism, precluding even a functionally pacifist position.     

Theology as Conversational Event: Karl Barth, the Ending of "Dialogue" and the Beginning of "Conversation"

This essay deals with a commonly voiced concern with Barth's theology as expressed in the form that his theology illegitimately secures itself from critique, polices its narrow location assiduously and only lets in a few carefully vetted others when convinced that they can be useful. In contrast, through exploring John Milbank's distinction between dialogue and conversation it becomes possible to critique James Barr's and Clark Pinnock's understandings of “conversation” in a way that serves to hear Barth, and what it entails for theology to be “conversational”, significantly differently. Indeed, it will be maintained that “conversation” is an appropriate metaphor to apply to what Barth was doing with his theology.     

God's Work,Our Hands

This essay offers a systematization of the various contributions to this issue, highlighting commonalities and creative tensions. Using Martin Luther's two‐kingdom theory as a framework, the leading question is the role of humanity in restoring creation and the deliberation that this ethical imperative—to carry out works of love on behalf of the neighbor (which includes creation itself)—might entail.     

‘Though he slay me,yet will I trust in him’: a critical reconstruction of Winnicott's theory of value

This paper extrapolates an outline for a theory of value from Winnicott's reflections on war in ‘Discussion of war aims’ (1940). The author treats Winnicott's discussion as an occasion for a critical reconstruction of his theory of life‐values. He discerns an implicit set of distinctions in Winnicott's reflections on war, including different orders of value (existential, ethical, and psychosocial); a distinction between maturity and necessity; and a yet more fundamental distinction between violence and brutality. The paper argues, on the basis of these distinctions, that Winnicott allows for an understanding of one's encounter with the enemy as an ethical relation. The main argument of the paper is that the ethical attitude underpins recognition of the enemy's humanity. On a more critical note, the author argues that Winnicott doesn't adhere consistently to the ethical attitude he presupposes, that in certain passages he privileges the maturity of combatants over the humanity of the enemy.     

On Kant's Idea of Humanity as an End in Itself

Writers like Christine Korsgaard and Allen Wood understand Kant's idea of rational nature as an end in itself as a commitment to a substantive value. This makes it hard for them to explain the supposed equivalence between the universal law and humanity formulations of the categorical imperative, since the former does not appear to assert any substantive value. Nor is it easy for defenders of value‐based readings to explain Kant's claim that the law‐giving nature of practical reason makes all beings with practical reason regard the idea of a rational nature as an end in itself. This article seeks to replace these value‐based readings with a reading of the idea of rational nature as an end that fits better with the overall argument of the Groundwork.     

Peace and Islam: In theory and practice

The article centres on the humanistic and peace‐oriented elements in the foundational sources of Islam, the Qur'an and the Prophet's life, especially on Muhammad's attitude towards war and peace. As the Qur'an clearly attests, Muhammad continued to search for reconciliation and mutual understanding,. with Jews and Christians as well as with opponents and enemies. As to jihad, Q. 2:90 and Q. 22:39 unambiguously prohibit offensive war, in fact, any kind of aggression, cruelty and wanton destruction. The Qur'an prescribes a humane conduct of war. Wherever politically possible, peace has the priority. Finally, the author exemplifies contemporary Muslim attitudes towards war and peace and describes Muslim peace initiatives.     

JOHN MILBANK's THEOLOGY OF THE "GIFT" AND CALVIN's THEOLOGY OF GRACE: A CRITICAL COMPARISON1

In his theology of the Gift, John Milbank advocates a theology of “reciprocity” between God and humanity, involving “active” rather than “passive” reception of the divine gift. Calvin and other Reformation theologians are criticized by Milbank as demeaning the role of the human partner by advocating “passivity” in the reception of grace. This essay compares Milbank's theology of the Gift with Calvin's theology of grace, showing how Calvin overcomes the schematic options of “passivity” or “reciprocity” in the divine‐human relation, all the while holding much more in common with Milbank's concerns about sanctification and participation than has generally been recognized.     

Encroachments on State Sovereignty: The Argumentation Strategies of the George W. Bush Administration

As the world has increasingly embraced globalization, temptations to encroach on traditional boundaries of state sovereignty for reasons of self-interest mount. Argumentation studies provide an important lens for examining the public discourse used to justify such moves. This essay examines the Bush administration’s strategic use of the definitional processes of association and dissociation to build its public case for regime change in Afghanistan. After exploring how the Bush administration’s early rhetoric after 9/11 failed to actually provide the Taliban a choice to remain in power, the essay reveals three combinations of the terrorism/state relationship that functioned as an argument by definition to gain support for the US campaign to overthrow the regime.     

Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez on Religious Authority and Cause for Justified War: The Centrality of Religious War in the Christian Just War Tradition

Contrary to the received understanding that Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez ruled out religious war by grounding just cause in natural law, they supported a robust view of papal authority for war when necessary for the defense of the church against heretics, schismatics, and pagans as well as for the spread of Christianity and Christendom throughout the world. They believed that religious wars were in accord with natural law as a means to its fulfillment in Christianity, as a justification for the defense of the church as the one true faith, and as a moral obligation to provide all of humanity with the opportunity to receive Christian truth and grace. The neo‐Thomists' vigorous support for religious war was in the mainstream of the Christian just war tradition from the time of the wars against pagans in the early middle ages through their own time. This finding and the continuation into the modern era of sanctified patriotism stemming from the mixing of church and state especially during war that began in early Middle Ages, along with the historic roots of the recently prominent presumption against war, argue for a more complex understanding of the normative Christian just war tradition than that found among supporters of the classic interpretation of that tradition.     

Legitimizing the “War on Terror”: Political Myth in Official‐Level Rhetoric

This paper argues that mythical discourse affects political practice by imbuing language with power, shaping what people consider to be legitimate, and driving the determination to act. Drawing on Bottici's (2007 ) philosophical understanding of political myth as a process of work on a common narrative that answers the human need to ground events in significance, it contributes to the study of legitimization in political discourse by examining the role of political myth in official‐level U.S. war rhetoric. It explores how two ubiquitous yet largely invisible political myths, American Exceptionalism and Civilization vs. Barbarism, which have long defined America's ideal image of itself and its place in the world, have become staples in the language of the “War on Terror.” Through a qualitative analysis of the content of over 50 official texts containing lexical triggers of the two myths, this paper shows that senior officials of the Bush Administration have rhetorically accessed these mythical representations of the world in ways that legitimize and normalize the practices of the “War on Terror.”     

The myth of a secular state: A study of religious politics with historical illustrations

Religion has continued to assert itself as a significant moral force in Nigeria's post‐independence politics; however, some recent studies of the country's political life tend to dismiss religion as a kind of mystical irrationality or an act of deluded trust. After conducting an audit of what I take to be the assets and the liabilities of the intellectual traditions underpinning this secularist preference, I propose a theory of political morality in which themes of legitimacy, identity and social justice are explained against the background of religious expectations. I argue that the rationale for political behaviour in Nigeria is not fully accounted for by the categories of class and ethnicity, but must be sought in a more inclusive and transcendent moral basis. I conclude that the recent high‐profile involvements of religious persons in politics should not be seen as flashes of political insanity; rather, they constitute genuine attempts to reformulate the modern language of public morality.