The Lesser Evil-Rational Responses to Terrorism

Political and religious disputes have undoubtedly existed as long as these fundamental differences in lifestyle, economy and faith have existed. Likewise, the desire for one group to take action against another in an effort to sway them into the aggressor's mindset is as old as recorded history itself. In bringing these proven facts into the 21st century, we find ourselves living in a world where militant religious groups, such as Muslims and others, have banded together to wage a highly disciplined, albeit evil and deadly, war on those who are considered "infidels" because of their cultural and religious diversion from what is interpreted by extremists to be the will of God. With this threat having manifested itself in countless acts of war over the recent decades, and reaching a tragic climax on September 11, 2001, the question of what to do in response to this organized terror has become a highly charged, political issue, and of course, quite literally a matter of the survival of the United States and other nations who have been deemed to be enemies of the more fundamental sects of the Middle East and elsewhere.

This issue of the clash of democracy against extremism is the main artery through which the lifeblood of " The Lesser Evil", by Michael Ignatieff, flows. His work explores various angles of moral relativism, politics, patriotism, and the battle against international terrorism, all of which are pivotal to the analysis of the most important issue of modern times. In this paper, Ignatieff's book will be analyzed and discussed on a much deeper level than the mere words that are found on the pages of the book; rather, through research, educated conclusions, and a healthy dose of opinion, the issues breached in "The Lesser Evil" will be brought under a more precise level of scrutiny and consideration.
A Brief Synopsis of "The Lesser Evil"

Generally speaking, "The Lesser Evil" is based on a series of lectures that author Michael Ignatieff delivered in 2003; these lectures dealing with the issue of terrorism (Ignatieff, 2004). More precisely, the author, in his book, discusses the threat that terrorism poses to the democracies of the world, chief among them the United States, as well as the need for a response to the terrorist acts and what that response should be. This, of course, covers a great deal of different viewpoints and perspectives, which are discussed in subsequent sections of this research. At this point, however, suffice it to say that Ignatieff poses for the reader a sort of political/ethical dilemma: how far can or should a people go to protect their homeland, way of life, and future generations? With these questions in mind, a close look at Ignatieff's main arguments is in order.

Ignatieff's Main Arguments

Ignatieff's book makes several main arguments which need to be pointed out if the reader is to fully comprehend the work. As the book begins, the author sets the stage for the points he is to present later by the use of these words:

"What lesser evils may a society commit when it believes it faces the greater evil of its own destruction" (Ignatieff, 2004, p.1).

In other words, how far can democracies take the steps of armed response to terror, sanctions against other nations, and the like, when protecting its own nation and people from terrorism? The knee-jerk reaction, of course, would be that no level of response is too high when defending one's self, but as Ignatieff progresses through his book, he presents some compelling viewpoints that would indicate otherwise. To be perfectly clear, Ignatieff does not advocate pacifism in response to terror- in fact, he agrees that force needs to be met with force-to a certain degree. However, he draws the line where the issue of the violation of American Constitutional rights is concerned, for he feels that no situation justifies the compromise of the rights of law abiding citizens, even in the interest of the pursuit of wrongdoers (Ignatieff, 2004). To this end, the author makes the point of stating that sovereign nations have as part of their makeup the concept of "institutional obligations" which hold nations to a certain standard of behavior, no matter what the circumstances may be (Ingatieff, 2004, p.119).

Much like the philosophers of old, Ignatieff makes the point that two wrongs do not make right, or in the case of international relations, if a nation is attacked in a terrorist way, while the nation does have the right to respond, they do not have the right to respond in an equally terrorist manner, lest they too become terrorists.

Unique Insight on the Book

Taking a look at the author's arguments in "The Lesser Evil", aside from the actual text itself, one comes to a fundamental question that cannot be avoided and must be addressed in this research if the author's work is to take on any relevance beyond the conclusions reached in the book itself; simply put, how can a "civilized" society like the US or Britain openly condemn violence when it is perpetrated against them and justify it when they themselves use it as a tool to defeat enemies and protect its own interests? Admittedly, platitudes such as "turn the other cheek" sound appealing, but are they really valid and potentially useful in a world where children are strapped with explosives and sent into crowded public areas in order to kill hundreds of unsuspecting people, and themselves, in the process? The glib response to this of course would be that the response of non-violence to violent acts is a way to nip violence in the bud so to speak; however, the reality of the gravity of the issue of international terror and aggression indicates that if acts of unprovoked violence are not responded to with a like level of force, the provocateur will constantly continue to inflict casualties on the passive enemy until that enemy is no more. This being understood, at what point does the armed response to terrorism take on an air of being terrorism in and of itself? The answer to this lays one of the words that the author used early in his book- justification.

Justification is the basis upon which nations like the US can base military actions against its enemies in the battle against terrorism- because of the fact that "group X", whomever they may be, has inflicted a certain level of damage on a democratic, ostensibly peaceful nation, that group should expect to have inflicted upon it a like level of damage, and perhaps even more, as a means of teaching the lesson that not only is what they are doing unacceptable in a civilized world, but also that there are definite consequences to such unwarranted and unwelcome actions. However, the concept of justification also comes with a caveat- because justification is such a powerful weapon in itself, it must be handled, and discharged, with a great deal of caution and discretion. Otherwise, the victim will cross the line and become the aggressor, which only will make a bad situation much worse.

Stated in the most basic of terms, a unique point of view that the researcher has taken away from a review of "The Lesser Evil" is that the victims of the evil acts must remain less aggressive and more civilized than their aggressors, lest they become "the greater evil".

Who Should Read this Book

The casual reviewer of "The Lesser Evil" may fall victim to the temptation of saying that the book is only of interest to scholars, or worse yet, to anti-war individuals. As has been pointed out thus far in the research, however, this is simply not the case. This book is a useful and informative work for anyone who has even a passing interest in the issues of world events, and especially those in power of the democracies that are falling victim to terrorism with alarming regularity, who, at the time of this research are entrenched in internal political debate over the proper way to respond to terrorism, if at all.

In fairness, while the average citizen has the luxury of second-guessing the government on its terrorism responses after the fact, in the heat of the battle against terror, leaders have to make critical decisions without all of the relevant data and the blessing of the majority. After the fact is usually when they have any chance to see if what actions they took were appropriate or not.

All of this being said, "The Lesser Evil" is certainly worthwhile to be read by student, citizen, and politician alike.

Conclusion

In "The Lesser Evil", Michael Ignatieff has taken on the daunting task of applying logic to what is often quite illogical, along the way shedding light on important concepts and working on solving many of the political mysteries of the modern world. One thing that the author cannot do, and indeed no author can do, is to change the hearts of the people of the world to try to work toward a realistic and lasting peace. The sad reality is that many more lives will likely have to be lost before this is even a remote possibility. In conclusion, however, let it be understood that with the help of bright minds like Ignatieff's, perhaps terrorism can one day fade from the horizon of the human experience.

References

Ignatieff, M. (2004). Lesser Evil: Political Ethics in the Age of Terror. Princeton: Princeton University Press.