A Summary Of Jus Ad Bellum

Throughout America’s long history, only a few nations have ever committed a successful attack against American held territory and all of these nations met swift redemption. Great Britain, which successfully set the White House ablaze, was beaten in the War of 1812 and in the Battle of New Orleans. Mexico, which perpetrated the Thornton Affair, was decisively beaten during the Mexican-American War. Furthermore, Mexico was also defeated at the Battle of Ambos Nogales, in which it attacked American territory after the Zimmerman Telegram in World War I. Germany’s submarine tactics against America cost it victory in World War I. Japan was eventually the victim of the only wartime nuclear detonations for its role in World War II. Now, America wages
Using this framework, war can only be waged by a sovereign political actor, which the U.S. fulfills due to its position as a nation. The U.S. also fulfills the Right Intention tenet of Jus Ad Bellum since it is fighting a war to restore the peace due to the unpredictable nature of ISIS. Similarly, the fulfills the Just Cause tenet of Jus Ad Bellum since the war would be fought in self-defense and against a known threat to the international system (ISIS). Moreover, the US has tried to avoid direct war with ISIS, but this attack warrants retaliation, thus fulfilling the last resort tenet of Jus Ad Bellum, since war was a last resort. Since the United States can circumscribe the war to specific regions, the damages caused by the war will not outweigh the benefits brought by victory, fulfilling the proportionality tenet of Jus Ad Bellum. Similarly, since the U.S. knows it can defeat ISIS and suppress Assad and thus establish a lasting peace in Syria it fulfills the tenet of creating a lasting peace through the
Proportionality requires combatants to use appropriate force, vilifying excessive or unconstrained force, while discrimination requires combatants to protect noncombatants, and forbids the use of force against them. The United States could still win a morally justifiable war against ISIS with these constraints. It can easily act proportionally by not using excessive force like nuclear arms or destroying property in a manner that would cause significant economic harm. Moreover, since ISIS massacred hundreds of civilians and Russia has implored every nation to list ISIS as a terrorist, the definition of “proportionality” can be debated, but the United States can defeat ISIS justly without having to resort to semantical quandaries. Similarly, the United States could discriminate between combatants and non-combatants and create a much better war record than it did in Iraq. Furthermore, since most of ISIS’s members are local militants who simply pledged allegiance, the United States can circumscribe its area of attack to the various headquarters of ISIS in the Iraq provinces of Baghdad, Al Anbar, Diyala, Kirkuk, Salah al-Din, Ninawa, and parts of Babil and the Syrian provinces of Al Barakah, Al Khayr, Raqqah, Homs, Halab, Idib, Hamah, Damascus, Ladhikiyah. This tactic drastically reduces the area the US will come into contact with, thus reducing the number of civilians affected by