ABSTRACT
Applying leading legal and ethical standards to evaluate government policy relating to the use of force in the War on Terrorism is problematic. This chapter explains how today's security context differs from those Just War Theory and the United Nations (UN) Charter paradigm were designed to address. It evaluates the so-called Bush Doctrine and the war convention's rules on neutrality and self-defense provides tentative empirical support for the proposition that Americans tend to demonstrate especially low levels of tolerance for ambiguity and contradiction. An estimate of partial US costs and consequences flowing from the War on Terrorism reveals potential, adverse spill-over effects; significant expenses of several kinds; and modest international burden-sharing, is provided. It presents reflective decision-making that seeks to minimize the costly divides al-Qaeda has exposed between the strategic, normative, and cultural dimensions of modern international politics and to spur expansion of viable policy options suitable for present and future security needs.
