Modern philosophers-War on terror

Niccolo Machiavelli
He is an Italian philosopher who spent most of his life in politics and patriotic works. Currently he is linked to a corrupt and totalitarian government because of his work commonly referred to as The Prince. He wrote the pamphlet so as to get influence with the ruling class in Florence. The prince is an intensely practical guide to the use of crude political power. In his work, Machiavelli stated that it is basically the character or vitality or skill of the individual leader that determines the success of any country (Valin, 2005).

He is one of the modern philosophers. He is popular among historians and political scientists because of his treaties in politics, which are considered to be practical in their application. In one of his most famous writings referred to as the prince, Machiavelli is advising his ruler on how to handle the problem of vice. He tells his ruler to do what is supposed to be done to ensure that the problem is solved (Mann, 2006).

The advice of Machiavelli is still useful even today especially in handling the issue of abuse of Iraqi POWs by the United States soldiers. The post on LGF states that we must in all-time act as if we are morally superior (Valin, 2005). Machiavelli would automatically differ with this fact because following that path would result in ruin. And in this case, the ruin of the west. In a condition of war, some actions should be left to the state, but on war against terrorism, the state is also involved. The Islamists terrorists most of the time act without the permission of the state and the state is also not able to control their activities. The west in their attack, go beyond the state (Tak, 2008).

The war on terrorism can be regarded as the fight to the death, a fact which is not realized by many. It becomes so because Europe has also become concerned. If Machiavelli was present he would have realized the serious nature of the fight. This is because during his time, the Turks were the forces to be considered (Mann, 2006). He would realize that the war on terror is very important to the culture and the society of the west, and that incomplete measures will not yield any fruits. He would also realize that holding back ones ability to fight against the Islamists based on the need to demonstrate morality is foolish and out rightly evil (Marrar, 2004).

He stated that if the matter is viewed critically, it will be recognized that some behaviors that appear moral, if approved is likely to result in ruin and others that seem bad leads to security and well being of the ruler. It shows that the security of the west should be given first priority while the rest follows. If the west fails to as a unified society and culture, then there is possibility that terrorism will prevail. The pro idealists are not able to effectively fight the Islamists in situations where empirists have failed therefore darkness is likely to result. The fall of the west will not be easy to predict in such a situation (Marrar, 2004).

Arab Muslim countries are likely to transform in a glass lake and this would not be easily stopped. The main goal on war on terror is stop the process of changing Arab countries into a glass lake. Any action which can be taken to stop the ArabMuslim countries should be taken. In relation to POW abuse story, it was not right and could not work and the acts of torture should not be supported. Moral high ground is attained by taking the best action and in this case, saving ArabMuslim countries from self destruction. If Machiavelli was present during this time, he would say that anything is more accepted morally than necessary genocide (Tak, 2008).

Thomas Hobbes
He was an English philosopher who experienced the civil war in England and this led him to describe a state of nature where the life of a man is lonely, poor, nasty, brutal, and short. Based on this observation he argued that the society required a strong leadership which would force man to do the right thing (Mann, 2006).

He perceived the society as a big machine which is in constant move, therefore the title of one of his famous works, The Leviathan. In this work, he argues that the natural status of man is war. He stated that men are constantly fighting one another (Tak, 2008). Hobbes is a supporter of an absolute monarchy, where power is vested in one powerful ruler, either the queen or the king, who is charged with the responsibility of creating and enforcing laws which are required for justice and formation of a moral society (Valin, 2005).

According to Hobbes, subjects are supposed to surrender their right of self government to one sovereign power who would then ensure self preservation and peace. If the principle that the sovereign represents his subjects appears so weird, then it is possible to conclude that the protestors against the Iraqi war of 2003 perceived the attack as violation of Iraqi sovereignty. The protesters meant that Saddams sovereignty was invaded. The relation of Saddam and Iraqi people, as if Saddam was representing them, and they authorized his actions, demonstrates the effects of Hobbes (Marrar, 2004).

According to the principles of Hobbes, the regime of saddam was legitimate and it was wrong to attack Iraq, on the other hand it is wise to consider that the Iraqi people did not agree to be ruled by Saddams regime voluntarily. It can be described as a country of fear, where people were forced to obey because the machinery for oppression threatened every citizen who failed to obey. According to Hobbes, the Saddams regime lacked the approval of the people therefore it can be considered illegitimate and deserved to be attacked (Mann, 2006).

Hobbes stated that a man in the state of nature seeks to satisfy his own selfish pleasure, and in the process of satisfying these selfish egos, war results with everyone fighting his neighbor. This principle can also be applied in Americans war on terror. American has been involved in war with any country which threatens his status in the world. The war in Iraq is not justified but was just done to fulfill the selfish interest of American leaders (Tak, 2008).

According to Machiavelli, the west should consider their countries first and ensure that they are united. If terrorism can only be put to an end through the war, then there is need to continue the war on terrorism. In one of his famous work, he stated that it is basically the character or vitality or skill of the individual leader that determines the success of any country. It is therefore the leadership of the west which will ensure that they succeed in the war against terrorism. Currently the Iraqi people have lost hope in life, and unless hope is restored, the violence will continue. If America fails to put its acts in order, it will leave another breeding ground for terrorism.  Hobbes believes that without proper leadership, people fight one another. According to Hobbes, current wars can be attributed to selfishness of the leaders, who are dedicated to achieving selfish gains.


Post a Comment