Analysis of Christopher Coker´s Essay: Can War be Eliminated?

Since the end of the Cold War, non-state actors have risen in both prevalence and apparent power. The presence of non-state entities has caused significant ethical and political problems with Western ideology. Coker discusses issues concerning non-state actors in “Ethics and War in the 21st Century” with special attention given to the conflicting cultural ideas regarding warfare concerning the USA. The ability to label a target as not only an enemy combatant, but a fundamentally opposed force that is willing to ignore common practices and ethics is one that Coker denounces and attempts to explain. The disparity of established ethics between the two groups is only complicated with emerging weapon technologies, most importantly non-lethal weapon systems. In recent decades, the concept of a diffused enemy has proven to be ethically more problematic regarding identification and actions against a combative force with considerations for emerging technologies.
For most of the world’s conflicts until the presence of violent non-state actors, clashes have occurred between large state entities. The wars and skirmishes consisted between the two states with a separate armed forces contingency battling each other on a set stage with defined ethical and political motives. This black and white model of violent conflict resolution became the standard for a long stretch of time and was agreed upon by all state actors. One of the reasons that Coker discusses for the advantageous nature of the set battlefield and soldiers includes the preservation of humanity for the civilian population and the soldiers. The mutual agreement of ethical boundaries even in war protect those not taking up arms and helps to maintain decency when regarding prisoners of...

... middle of paper ...

...ker further explores the impact of the lack of these promises through discussion of how a faction should approach wining a war. He proposes that the winning side should use only the minimum force needed to win and do so with a cordial and respectful manner so to not incite further revenges and destabilize the region. Without these promises the possibility of “absolute” enemies take rise and are also envisioned by the perspective of anti-terrorists. The identification of such an extreme combatant allows for abuse of ethics and degradation of integrity. Coupled with expanding use of non-lethal weapon exploration, the moral battlefield takes an even more precarious stance. For these reasons, and in agreement with Coker, the of the importance to maintain ethical and moral boundaries when facing a combatant willing to sacrifice all decency cannot be more highly stressed.