Timeline for In what cases are counter-terrorist operations justified?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 20 at 2:26 | comment | added | Simon Richter | @TadeuszKopec, which is why this answer is a bit of a frame challenge: public opinion is not a guiding principle. It may have consequences in interior politics in democratic states if you cannot use the state of war to sway public opinion or delay elections, and it affects whether other states enter a conflict (and thus indirectly affects outcome, which we do care about), but there is no referee that can penalize states or undo things if something that happened was "unjustified." | |
| Apr 19 at 16:13 | comment | added | Tadeusz Kopec | I think "justified" in original question did not mean it this way. For example Operation Allied Force achieved its goal but calling it justified brings some controversies. | |
| Apr 19 at 10:18 | comment | added | Simon Richter | @TadeuszKopec, yes, because we're talking about sovereign states here. Only outcomes are relevant. If Kyiv is taken, there is no recourse because the aggression was "unjustified" -- that doesn't undo what happened. This also means that there is no reason for any ally to wait with aid for Ukraine until some red line has been crossed, because waiting will produce a worse outcome, at the same expense. | |
| Apr 18 at 16:20 | comment | added | Tadeusz Kopec | Do I understand correctly, that Russian aggression on Ukraine was unjustified not because it was an unprovoked aggression but because Russia failed to achieve its goal i.e. take Kyiv and change Ukrainian government? | |
| Jan 7 at 7:01 | comment | added | o.m. | Military operations are justified by a casus belli. The likelihood of success may perhaps factor into proportionality tests for specific elements of a plan. | |
| Jan 6 at 19:07 | comment | added | Simon Richter | @ItalianPhilosophers4Monica, any threat justifies military action -- that is the nature of a sovereign state. Some operations are, however, obviously unsuitable to remove the threat, e.g. invading Iraq in response to a terrorist threat from Afghanistan, then later declaring "Mission Accomplished" and leaving a power vacuum, and these are the things the international community dislikes. Bombing Gaza is unpopular mainly because no one can see a path for regime change as a result, and the alternatives are undesirable. | |
| Jan 6 at 17:58 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | That implies pre-knowledge of whether said plans are attainable or not. Many a military operation looked better in anticipation than in hindsight. This looks to be dodging the question - what level of threat justifies taking risks? You're saying "if we know it works, do it". But that's not possible, "a plan" remains a plan, not an outcome. | |
| Jan 6 at 13:04 | history | answered | Simon Richter | CC BY-SA 4.0 |