The Morality of Suicide Bombings
The bombing last week in Damascus that killed Syrian Defense Minister Daoud Rajiha, internal security chief Hafez Makhlouf, and Deputy Defense Minister Asef Shawkat (who also happened to be the brother-in-law of President Bashar al-Assad), was a major turning point in the Syrian civil war. By striking at the heart of the country’s security apparatus, the rebels demonstrated that they have earned the support of high-ranking defectors within the regime. But it is the nature of the attack—alleged to have been a suicide bomb—that brings to the fore an interesting debate about morality in warfare.
Writing at Commentary, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and war historian Max Boot says that, while “it is hard not to see some element of cosmic justice” in the killing of men responsible for the ongoing slaughter of countless civilians, “it is hard to take much satisfaction in the manner of their demise. For suicide bombing is never the weapon of the moderate.” Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic echoes this sentiment, warning that “suicide bombing is a leading indicator of societal collapse.” UK Defense Secretary William Hague condemned the bombing outright. It remains unclear at this point whether or not last week’s attack was indeed a suicide bomb, but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume it was: would that affect its morality?
There are really two questions here: the practical one of what a suicide bombing portends, and the metaphysical one of whether or not a suicide bombing can ever be justified. The answer to the first, I believe, hinges upon the person who decided to take his own life in the process of taking the lives of those whom Goldberg correctly identifies as “war criminals.” If the suicide bomber is a member of al-Qaeda or a like-minded jihadist organization, then that would indeed be a disturbing sign of the increasing influence of Islamic extremists over the Syrian revolution.