Justifying Aggression: Why It Happened and Why It Failed?

By: Ibrahim Othman

If, during the days when “FFC” leaders were chanting the phrase “There is no alternative to the Framework Agreement but war,” someone had said to their supporters: (If the Rapid Support Forces rebel, occupy your homes, and the UAE supports their rebellion, your leaders will defend both), the assured response from all would have been denial—acknowledging such an act as wrong if it occurred. However, some later accepted that very defense when it did happen!

Exploring this phenomenon reveals patterns of post-facto justification for acts once deemed reprehensible in theory. These patterns have been studied by theorists across disciplines. Their core logic can be summarized as: (When principles vanish, justification becomes a survival art: if it serves political interest, it should be understood—instead of, if it contradicts principle, it must be condemned).

Psychological and Social Mechanisms of Justification:

1. Cognitive Dissonance Theory: The principle becomes an internal burden: If the wrongdoing is from my faction, it must be justified — instead of: If it contradicts my values, it must be rejected.

2. Hindsight Bias: Aggression appears wise: Since it happened, it must have been justified — instead of: Since it was wrong, it should’ve been avoided.

3. Confirmation Bias: The act confirms bias: If it supports my worldview, it must be defended — instead of: If it violates principles, it must be condemned.

4. Psychological Cost Minimization: The wrong becomes a tolerable sacrifice: If it lessened greater pain, it’s justified — instead of: If it’s unjust, it must be rejected.

5. Group Pressure and Social Identity: Loyalty becomes the moral compass: If it’s from our group, it must be understood — instead of: If it’s immoral, it must be criticized.

6. Political Polarization: Criticism becomes betrayal: If it weakens our side, it must be silenced — instead of: If it’s wrong, it must be spoken.

7. Normalization of External Justifications: The violation becomes routine: If it happened, it’s normal — instead of: If it’s aggression, it must be condemned.

8. Ethics of Principle vs. Ethics of Circumstance: Context rules ethics: If it’s exceptional, it must be understood — instead of: If it’s unethical, it must be rejected.

9. Moral Pragmatism: The act becomes utilitarian: If it produces results, it’s right — instead of: If it’s unjust, no result justifies it.

10. Practical Moral Relativism: The aggressor becomes the standard: If they’re our ally, it’s permissible — instead of: If it’s wrong, it must be rejected.

11. Unconscious Collusion: Justification becomes automatic: If it protects my identity, it’s rational — instead of: If it’s immoral, there’s no excuse.

12. Group vs. State Legitimacy: Group loyalty overrides national duty: If it benefits our group, it’s legitimate — instead of: If it harms the state, it must be rejected.

13. Post-Act Language Shifting: Narratives become tools of absolution: If it happened, it must be justified — instead of: If it was wrong, it must be condemned.

14. Meaning Reframing After Shock: Interpretation becomes a survival mechanism: If it eases pain, it’s acceptable — instead of: If it distorts truth, it’s complicity.

15. Necessity and Realism: Reality dictates judgment: If it occurred, it must be accepted — instead of: If it’s wrong, it must be corrected.

16. Go-with-the-Flow Theory: Majority view becomes salvation: If everyone in my group supports it, no need to reject it — instead of: If it’s wrong, numbers don’t change that.

17. Political Framing Effects: Wrong becomes duty: If it fits our narrative, it’s justified — instead of: If it’s aggression, it’s condemnable no matter the story.

18. Targeting the Other: Aggression becomes triumph: If it’s against our enemies, it’s cleansing — instead of: If it harms innocents, it’s a crime.

19. Erosion of Personal Values: Conscience goes silent: If it’s from my faction, it’s tolerable — instead of: If it’s immoral, I won’t justify it.

20. Absence of Critical Thinking: Reason serves the group: If it helps my group, let it pass — instead of: If it contradicts justice, it must be opposed.

Why Did Their Defense Fail and Become a Scandal?

1. Loss of Core Legitimacy: The defense was built on a position lacking moral or legal foundation.

2. Value Frame Clashing with Public Values: The ethical frame used in the discourse was out of sync with the broader societal value of sovereignty.

3. Violation of the Social Contract: When a speaker defends an entity perceived as a threat to collective safety, the audience sees it as moral abandonment.

4. Boomerang Effect: The message backfires. The more insistent the defense, the more the audience clings to its original stance, interpreting the discourse as coercive or deceptive.

5. Distorted Identity of the Defender: The speaker appears to adopt the identity of the aggressor, blurring lines and appearing to abandon national allegiance.

6. Failure of Comparative Framing: Using minimizing or unfair comparisons appears as trivializing national harm and deepens public resentment.

7. Extreme Logical Bankruptcy: Reliance on hollow arguments reveals a detachment from lived reality, perceived as linguistic arrogance, not rational explanation.

8. Exposure of Personal Motives: When the defense seems self-serving, the speaker is seen as justifying for themselves, not others, losing credibility instantly.

9. Emotional Disconnect: Failure to appeal to the audience’s ethical or emotional core renders the speech cold and mechanical, preventing empathy and persuasion.

10. Contradiction with Collective Experience: When the defense contradicts what people have seen or lived, it is perceived as falsification, not interpretation, triggering public sensitivity to lies.

11. Abuse of Symbolic Authority: Exploiting former official positions to lend fake legitimacy, especially to convince foreign actors of the aggressor’s innocence.

12. Residence in the Aggressor’s Territory: The speaker’s presence in the defending country leads to the assumption of geographical bias, tainting their testimony.

13. Willful Omission of Key Facts: Avoiding core realities and focusing on peripheral issues raises suspicion about the speaker’s true intent.

14. Funding Influence: Publicly acknowledging Western funding opens speculation about additional financial ties, especially when the defended state is known for funding aligned forces.

15. Evasion of Direct Questions: Dodging key questions and resorting to empty verbosity undermines the speaker’s credibility.

16. Underestimating Public Intelligence: Assuming audience naivety and offering flimsy evidence triggers backlash and entrenches rejection.

17. Lack of Alternative Solutions: Focusing solely on justifying aggression without offering practical alternatives reduces the argument to an abstract defense and raises doubts about the speaker’s real intentions.