Description
What types of limited strikes are there and how are they justified? To answer these questions, this article explores two different types of limited strikes that are arguably to be considered force short of war. The “Hot Pursuit” narrative delineates the way in which states respond to terrorist attacks against non-state actors, combining both punitive and preventive arguments to justify striking targets within the borders of other states. Tracing the US response to attacks on its embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (1998) to the Indian response to terrorists attacks by Jaish-e-Mohammed militants (2019) amidst emerging norms of drone use reveals how limited strikes went from a “do something” reaction to self-defense norm. The “Red Line” narrative articulates the manner in which states back foreign policy goals with the threat of limited force if other states do not comply. The inherent risk is twofold: on the one hand, the reputational costs of bluffing; on the other, the escalatory risk of carrying through with the threat. From the escalatory campaigns to enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq in the 1990s (Operation Northern Watch), to Western non-strikes and strikes in response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons, amidst open threats against Iran and North Korea, this narrative balances the weight of inaction versus the ethical dilemmas of over-action. Importantly, the perceived legitimacy of each narrative is intertwined with other narratives about the use and abuse of just war and the perceived failure of RtoP to respond to the challenges states face when combatting terrorist groups, as well as other states seeking or using weapons of mass destruction.
