Just War Theory, beginning with Cicero, states that “war should be a last resort,” only when discussion has failed. Do you agree with this tenet? Do you think negotiating a peace with the Taliban and al-Qaeda have been more ethical than invading Afghanistan one month after the U.S. was attacked on 9/11?
Thank you for the opportunity to help you with your question!
According to the regulations of the international community after WWI, It is accurate to say this statement by Cicero is in agreement with current just war theory, based on the international regulations regarding "Jus ad bello" and "Jus ad bellum." These are the two parts of just war theory that basically say that you have to have a justified reason to go to war and whatever defensive force you use has to correlate with the force used in the offensive. With war being the outcome of a conflict, I do agree with this. If negotiating peace with the Taliban and al-Qaeda had been realistic, It would have been more moralistic; however, due to their lack of acknowledgement of any form of international law, including just war theory, and their fundamental, strict islamic mindset, it would not have been possible. Due to the realistic lack of reality that would have come with attempting to negotiate peace, I do not think it would have been any more moralistic then invasion, being realistic in their likelyhood to attack again and continue to kill.
Please let me know if you need any clarification. I'm always happy to answer your questions.