When one wants to defend itself in a state of war, destruction of the opposition's forces is often justified. But what if the opposition forces are not military personnel or infrastructure but rather schools and universities? Attacking educational institutions as a war tactic not only raises moral and ethical questions regarding the nature of warfare, but also its long term impact on societies. But most important it questions, does attacking schools make you a hero or does it strip away the very humanity that war is supposed to defend.
Education is an essential component of any society, supporting the growth of future generations, promoting peace, and rebuilding communities. In war zones, however, schools and universities can become ideal targets for the enemy. These attacks are not random acts of violence; they are often planned attacks intended to destabilise communities, disrupt schooling, and spread terror. Players who assault educational institutions strike at the heart of a country's future, as schools serve as centers for learning, culture, and stability.
Even in Pakistan the prime example of such attacks to destabilise the state are present like the APS attack in 2014 and the Bacha Khan university attack in 2016. Umar Mansoor, the Taliban commander at the time of the Bacha Khan attack, who was also the mastermind behind the APS attack, stated in a video how he will keep targeting schools as they are a “nursery” for people who challenge Allah’s law. He also said that “This is the place where lawyers are made, this is the place that produces military officers, this is the place that produces members of parliament, all of whom challenge Allah's sovereignty.” Such claims show the ideology behind the people who consider themselves heroes by attacking educational institutions.
Image from Umar Mansoor’s video statement after attack on Bacha Khan University
In Afghanistan, Syria and the Gaza strip schools have transformed to battlegrounds. They are heavily bombed and then occupied by the military forces. They are often also made into military bases, storage sites for weaponry and military infrastructure for other purposes. Such attacks seek to deprive communities of the opportunity to educate their youth, damaging the social fabric and ensuring a generation raised without proper education and social structure.
Targeting schools is more than simply physical destruction; it's also psychological warfare. Children, teachers, and parents are left to deal with the aftermath of violence in what should be a safe environment. The psychological scars run deep, leaving entire communities in fear.
In fragile states where education is already an issue due to underdevelopment and poverty, attacks on educational institutions can delay a state's progress by a decade. As discussed before in the case of Pakistan and Umar Mansoor, in conflict zones extremist groups are against modern education, as they see it as a threat to their traditional ideology. For example the Boko Haram group in Nigeria. The name Boko Haram literally translates to “Western Education is Forbidden” which gives a clear idea of their opposing ideology towards education. Their way of attacking educational institutes has been by not just been limited to physical warfare by deploying weaponry but by also kidnapping students, and terrorising communities to instill fear among the people towards educating their children.
As a counter to these attacks and oppressions, International institutions take a clear stance against the use of educational institutes as targets in war. The United Nations has studied its importance and launched the Safe School Declaration initiative which aims to keep educational facilities like schools and colleges away from active war participation. As of 2024, 120 out of the 206 world states have signed this declaration. More countries need to commit to this ideology and hold those who, not just from other states but from within their state, attack and violate this agreement accountable.
Now coming back to the main question. Does all of this really make one a hero? NO. By doing so they are not heroes or symbols of victory and strength but rather show how their attacks are a failure to the ethics of war. Heroes do not wipe down future generations, they protect them. By attacking schools they present the message that they are willing to sacrifice the most innocent members of a society for their short term gains.
I like how this post points out the terrible consequences of bombing learning institutions during war as it brings out profound ethical issues of the use of force in eliminating the most vulnerable in society-children and students. Thus, the post captures many degrees of the harm that such attacks produce not only for the physical environment but also for the societal and psychological well-being of the communities. I particularly liked it as it relates these attacks to other ideological motives, by such groups such as the Taliban and Boko Haram, and it forces you to think deeply about such destruction.
However, there are a few areas which should have been improved in this post. Though the examples given here such…
I found your article very enlightening as it went into great detail into the psyche of the people who commit these atrocities and how they rationalize the killing of children in educational institutes. I used to believe it was for simply shock purposes to draw attention to their causes but you correctly pointed out, with the example of Umar Mansoor, that the issue goes much deeper.
As you pointed out, the perception that 'modern' education would be detrimental to traditional values and would somehow create people who are opposed to Islam just because of their professions is absurd. This made me wonder on the type of education that the people who believe this recieved and I couldn't help but link…
I think it's really interesting that you emphasised on the causation of destroying schools leading to a destabilised community. It truly makes the importance of an education system stand out.
More importantly, we can connect this to Paulo Friere's ideology that education is, in its essesnce, liberative. Although Friere distinguishes between formal and informal, he does not claim that one is superior to the other. In fact, when we extend his ideas to Bell Hooks, we can focus more on what a classroom setting has to offer. Hooks discsusses how within a classroom, individuals have much larger potential of developing strategies for "conscientization". Conscientization refers to having awareness of being a "knower". With this awareness individuals are correspondinly enabled of…
This blog really highlights the deep moral dilemma surrounding the targeting of schools in wartime. The contrast between those who claim to be 'defenders' of their ideology and the reality of attacking innocent children and educators is staggering. It shows how war can strip away humanity, even for those who believe they are fighting for a cause.