We have all heard, “The best defense is a good offense.” However, this old adage comes into question as America currently faces the pressing and critical issue of how to deal with the threat of ISIS, a radical Islamist terrorist group. There are, fortunately, conventions in place that have helped nations effectively navigate similar moral dilemmas throughout history. In using such devices, namely jus ad bellum and jus post bellum aspects of Just War Theory, and both virtue and utilitarian ethical frameworks, the given plan for American military intervention in Iraq and Syria is indeed a morally justifiable cause and should be pursued. It is helpful to rationalize an ethical, just initiation of a war on ISIS by looking closely at the considerations of jus ad bellum. This aspect of Just War Theory posits …show more content…
When analyzing the current situation, specifically the most recent attacks made by ISIS in Paris and Brussels and on American embassies in Libya, Jordan, and Egypt, it is clear that military intervention is warranted at this point. Clearly, any act of armed conflict would be made out of self-defense not only to protect American interests and citizens overseas, but also to ensure the future stability of the Middle East. Also, any action would not be made as a preemptive measure, but in direct response to the atrocities already committed, an important requirement for the cause of self-defense. Furthermore, as ISIS is not a legitimate state with entirely unreasonable goals and expectations, the potential for effective diplomacy and negotiations is just as unreasonable. This is further proven by diplomat Jonathan Powell, who asserts that ISIS is