The War on Terror and the limits of morality

The War on Terror has exposed a fundamental philosophical difference amongst Americans regarding the lengths the United States(or a person) should go to protect the nation from
harm.

Many people--mostly liberals--believe that if the US cannot prosecute a war within accepted guidelines of warfare than it isn't a war worth being fought. They believe that ideals come before safety.

There is also a belief being propagated that a war can be fought without doing morally reprehensible things.

President Barack Obama expressed his support for such an idea when he stated this in his inaugural speech: "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers ... our found fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake."

Conversely, there are those who will excuse Abu Ghraib, water boarding, and other ethically questionable acts in the name of self preservation. Laws and morality are of secondary importance to the imperative of guaranteeing the safety of the nation.People on this side of the ideological fence tend to be more conservative and/or distrustful of foreign peoples and institutions.

While both arguments have their plus' and minus' and that both mean well, I have to lean towards the "defense before morality" side. Survival and protection of ones family supercedes any set of values that one may have.We are afterall, animals.It is perfectly acceptable to respond to a grave threat to the health of their tribe, nation, or family, with violence.

Of course, i do not advocate responses that indiscriminately kill, do not directly assist the means to the end, dubious in terms of effectiveness, or hinder the war effort. A nation needs leaders who place emphasis on virtues such as practicality, intelligence, resilience, and determination. That is how we ultimately won the Second World War and how we will eventually win this one.

To that end we must set certain criteria for each action to be judged by. In my mind the standards should be three things: a) does it increase the chance of ending the war quickly and in a satisfactory fashion b) does it have a realistic chance of success and c) there is not a better option that meets standards of a and b as well as protecting innocent life.

Life at times makes us decide between two equally repugnant choices. No one hopes to ever be placed in such a spot, but unfortunately life presents us with such emotionially and intellectually wrenching decisions. It is under the pressure of circumstances such as these when we see the true measure of a leader's character.

Will he be a Neville Chamberlain and prove himself to be effete, weak, and irresolute. Or will become like Winston Churchill, a source of a nation's defiance, resolution, and strength? Chamberlain strove to prevent war, but in the process lost the credibility to lead England during the Second World War .It was only when a leader who was willing to make the morally ambiguous decisions that England was able to fend off Hitler's Germany long enough until the US entered the war.

Morality is something humans need. We should all strive to be moral. But there are times when morality has to take a backseat to the realities of life as a human. We simply cannot place ethics above the safety of our loved ones. The most fundamental "right" a person has is to defend themself. Everything else comes in second.