Black Friday in Paris

The murderous ‘Black Friday’ attacks in Paris by totalitarian fundamentalists ready to shed blood in the name of religion highlight the need to answer a stark question: is it ever better to ‘kill first’ then ask questions later?

Until now, the standard response to that question in law enforcement circles has been ‘no’. Instead, police are required to aim for a peaceful resolution of siege or hostage scenarios and to secure the lives and safety of all involved – including the perpetrator who should be disarmed, arrested and handed over for trial and punishment by the courts.

 In military circles, the answer is different. There, the use of force must be proportional and discriminate. In circumstances of war, every combatant is a legitimate target and can be killed unless they have completely surrendered and laid down their arms.

 So, which answer should now prevail – that of law enforcement agencies or the military?

 In the aftermath of the Paris atrocities, three principal factors are now likely to shape our evolving response to terrorism of the variety employed by Daesh and its allies.

 First, the terrorists conceive of themselves as being engaged in a war against liberal democracies like Australia. In their mind, the ‘battle space’ has no limits and extends as far as their reach. They follow a corrupted version of the military doctrine known as ‘effects based operations’ (EBO). This approach is principally concerned with the achievement of military and strategic effects and less so with the particular means by which those effects are brought about. EBO allows for the use of ‘unconventional means’ – such as targeting infrastructure that might dampen a population’s will to fight. It was once popular in war colleges in the West, although it is not so much these days.

 Originally conceived in the U.S. as a n approach that might minimise the use of lethal force in achieving strategic ends, EBO is a doctrine unwittingly ready-made for use by terrorists who pervert its intent and underlying logic to justify their targeting and tactics – and so it has turned out to be.

 Second, the terrorists are now able to deploy activists who are familiar with the use of restricted armaments – like the AK47 and grenades – and/or are entirely indiscriminate in their use of whatever weapons they have on hand. Some have learned their craft while on operations in places like Syria. Others have been taught these dispositions and skills (even at a rudimentary level) by those returning from such places. Add to this a sick, religious gloss that teaches murder and martyrdom to ensure a place in paradise and you have a deadly mix of vicious intent and lethal means – where an attacker’s goal is nothing other than to die after killing as many others as possible. For such people there is no future state to be negotiated.

 Third, in a country like Australia, the most effective respondents to terrorists of this kind are soldiers belonging to our special forces command. Their opposite numbers in the state and territory police forces are incredibly skilled – but their whole disposition is, as it should be, towards the maintenance of peace and good order in a civilian regime where judges and juries determine consequences for the guilty. If special forces are to be deployed in circumstances such as those that arose in the Bataclan Theatre in Paris, then they will bring to the task the logic of the battlefield.

 So, the threshold question is this: should Australia respond to terrorism as a criminal act or as an act of war waged on Australian soil?

 How we answer this question depends on a number of factors – and not just our desire to preserve life and safety. For example, one of the ‘effects’ that Daesh and its adherents seek to achieve is the corruption of our free societies. Their aim is not merely to kill and maim (although some are probably content to do just this). Rather, their tacticians wish to force us to become the very thing they claim to hate – justifying their condemnation of our way of life. They aim to create a ‘vicious circle’ in which they provoke through terror a response by which we curb liberties and resort to the preemptive use of lethal force. Daesh then plays its ‘trump card’ by claiming that we are as vicious as they say – a spurious proof that they then use to justify another round of terror and response.

 The only antidote to this is not to give way and not to abandon our own principles. Ideally, we should treat terrorists as criminals. We should apprehend, try and punish them as we would any other murderous thug. As renowned Canadian philosopher Michael Ignatieff memorably noted, “the difference between a warrior and a barbarian is ethical restraint”. On this account, Daesh terrorists are just barbarians. As such, we should deny them the legitimacy of being deemed  ‘warriors’ or ‘martyrs’ for a cause. Instead, they should be condemned as dishonourable, cold-blooded murderers.

 On the other hand, continuing to treat terrorists as criminals is only likely to lead to the death or injury of growing numbers of innocent victims of terror. As noted above, terrorists working in the service of Daesh do not want to negotiate, they do not want to live for another day – they just want to kill and be killed. It would be a fine thing if we could capture such people and administer whole and dispassionate justice. In doing so, we would prove the integrity of our post-enlightenment, liberal society. Unfortunately, that is a luxury we may no longer be able to afford – as the price has become innocent blood.

 There is not much point in invoking a political ideal (no matter how noble) as a reason for not saving a fellow citizen from death at the hand of a zealot. The terrible truth taught in Paris is that terrorists must be disabled without hesitation or delay – and if that can only be done with lethal force, then so be it. It then becomes a matter of who should be called upon to take such action.

 Although police may, as a last resort, use lethal force to protect life, there are good reasons for thinking it may be better to reserve to the military the task of killing terrorists before they can kill others (and to be blunt – that is what is being considered here). To the greatest extent possible, we must try to prevent such conduct from becoming the norm in civilian society – if possible reserving such conduct to members of the Defence Force who carry the particular burden of having to engage in conduct of this kind.

 Of course, resort to preemptive killing is a terrible last resort and we will all be scarred by such a decision – no matter how justified it might be. To that extent, the terrorists are already exacting their price. But as a temporary and extra-ordinary measure this is a price we may just have to pay as a lesser toll than the blood shed in Paris on the evening of Friday, 13 November 2015.

Image via The Independent.