I was recently [url=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138751/alexander-meleagrou-hitchens/jihad-comes-to-kenya]reading[/url] an article on Foreign Affairs about the rise of al-Shabaab in Kenya. To save you a long, dry explanation about the group, they are essentially an Al-Qaeda linked Jihadist organization that was previously thought to have been operationally obsolete. However, the recent attack in Nairobi has brought into question this notion. The author of the article was able to interview several ex-militants who defected from the group. One of the former members was 16 when he was recruited, and joined because of economic troubles preventing him from receiving schooling. There was, of course, a great deal of ideological lies involved as well. He recounts how he was sent to Somalia and forced to raid villages on a daily basis. Whenever someone refused an order, questioned their leaders, or just stepped out of line in general, they were killed. Specifically, his friend was slaughtered after refusing an order to -blam!- a villager. Now, given the fact that many members of terrorist and rebel groups throughout Africa are ideologically disillusioned youth or forced child soldiers, how responsible are they for their -blam!-s and other crimes? [b]In some cases, are 14-17 year old soldiers, hyped up on drugs and threatened with death by higher officers on a daily basis, -blam!- victims themselves because they are forced to -blam!-?[/b] At what point does victim hood end, and perpetration begin? Not all of these militants are young, nor are all disillusioned, but rather critically aware of the abuses they are conducting. Are they the only true "guilty" party? So lets say this kid's friend (who was probably in the range of 16 to 18 years old)--now aware of the lies he was told during recruitment, but scared for his own life--decided not to disobey but rather -blam!- the villager. Would he be morally responsible? Would he be a -blam!- victim? What about his friend, who said that he was forced to do terrible things too. Is he morally responsible, or just another innocent victim in a perverse group's attempt to maintain its monopoly of power? I think this is an interesting question, especially since many of these militants join up believing that they are [i]protecting[/i] their religious or ethnic groups, or are forced to be soldiers themselves. Are they victims? Do they deserve sympathy, or do they deserve a personal room in the Hague? The issue of war crimes is a difficult one, not only because intent is so hard to prove, but also because some of the perpetrators seem like victims themselves. I suppose I should give my opinion: In my view, child soldiers who are forced to kill and -blam!- should be viewed as victims themselves. I also believe there is some moral leeway for older teenagers, as well. However, for adults (say, 20 and up), I find myself swinging back and forth. In those cases, I believe it depends on the individual's circumstances.