What are U.S. obligations in terms of minimizing civilian casualties? Address the question above based on “The Just War Doctrine”. Argue the issue from the perspective of the U.S. government or a sovereign nation such as Afghanistan or Iraq. From the

### U.S. Obligations Under "The Just War Doctrine" From the perspective of the United States government, the Just War Doctrine places a significant obligation on the U.S. to minimize civilian casualties during military engagements. This doctrine, rooted in both theological and philosophical traditions, outlines criteria for justifying the initiation of war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct within war (jus in bello). 1. **Jus ad Bellum**: This principle addresses the justification for going to war. The U.S. must ensure that any military action is a last resort, is declared by a legitimate authority, and has a just cause. In contexts such as Afghanistan or Iraq, the U.S. framed its actions as justified responses to terrorism and threats to national and global security. 2. **Jus in Bello**: This principle governs how war should be conducted. The U.S. is obligated to discriminate between combatants and non-combatants, ensuring that military operations aim to minimize civilian harm. This includes adhering to the principles of proportionality — whereby the anticipated collateral damage should be proportional to the military advantage gained — and necessity, where civilian casualties should be avoided unless directly necessary for military operations. By following these principles, the U.S. government must constantly assess its military strategies to ensure that civilian lives are respected, which enhances legitimacy in international law and helps garner global support. ### Dissident Group Perspective Conversely, from the perspective of a terrorist or dissident group, the application of the Just War Doctrine can be interpreted differently. Such groups may argue that: 1. **Ineffective State Structures**: They may posit that current state systems are illegitimate, corrupt, or oppressive, claiming that they have a just cause to overthrow such regimes. They could argue that their adversaries (the U.S. or allied nations) have violated the principles of Just War by engaging in unjust military practices, thereby justifying violent resistance. 2. **Moral High Ground**: They may view their actions as a form of resistance against imperialistic oppression, claiming that any means necessary are justified to attain freedom or justice, especially when they argue that conventional means of negotiating have failed. 3. **Targeting the State**: They could assert that targeting state infrastructure, or even civilians, may be deemed necessary to weaken an oppressive regime, viewing such actions as a strategic necessity in their struggle for liberation. They may argue that when faced with overwhelming military force, asymmetric tactics (including attacks on civilians) are a rational, albeit tragic, response. While the Just War Doctrine emphasizes restraint aimed at minimizing suffering and protecting civilian life, dissident groups might argue that the state’s failure to protect their civilian populations from violence justifies their actions in pursuing the broader goal of regime change or resistance. ### Impact of "The Just War Doctrine" on Current Wars The ongoing war on terrorism and conflicts involving groups like ISIS or Hamas complicate the application of the Just War Doctrine. The U.S. has justified military action against these groups based on both the necessity of self-defense and the need to prevent broader threats to civilian populations, framing their interventions as “just” wars. However, civilian casualties incurred in these operations can lead to local resentment and perceived justification for retaliatory violence by these groups, creating a cyclical pattern of conflict. ### Civilian Attacks by Terrorists As for attacks against civilian targets, such as the ones in Paris or San Bernardino, it is harder to justify these actions under the Just War Doctrine. The doctrine emphasizes the need to distinguish between combatants and innocents, and the intentional targeting of civilians is typically seen as a violation of jus in bello. While terrorist groups may attempt to rationalize these attacks as necessary for achieving their ends, they generally do not meet the ethical standards of just cause, proportionality, and discrimination established in the Just War Doctrine. Such acts can ultimately undermine their legitimacy and alienate potential supporters, as they contradict fundamental moral principles that dictate the conduct of war. ### Conclusion The Just War Doctrine has significant implications for both state and non-state actors in conflicts centered around terrorism and regime change. It delineates the moral obligations of governments to protect civilian lives while also framing the arguments made by dissident groups for their acts of violence. Ultimately, the interpretation and application of these principles shape the conduct of contemporary warfare and the ethical considerations surrounding them.