|
I too find this thread to be quite thought-provoking. For my linear, simplistic mind, I read the original article to, basically, make a distinction between terrorists and enemy soldiers based on what group they belong to and what/who they attack. I understand his train of thought, but think that his definition is overly simplistic. Would the US code definition of terrorism find that the perpetrators of the Boston Tea Party were terrorists? A quick read would say yes, even though history tells us(Americans at least) that this group of Freemasons were actually picking a fight for freedom.
As for Marina's interesting writing, I think our questioning of whether terrorists have ethics is only partially relevant. Initially, I would answer that, yes, they have some sort of ethical code, as they outwardly state that their actions are mandated by their religion.
Clearly, we do not share their ethical code. However, the reason why the question of whether they have ethics need be answered is solely to know what "makes them tick", and to determine the most efficacious way to destroy either their will or ability to conduct terrorist activities. Beyond that, the issue becomes quite academic.
Another question presented is how to have a "just war" with terrorists. Indeed, the Geneva convention and other more-modern rules of war mandate and imply that wars would be fought between two or more well-defined uniformed military forces. This is clearly not the case in the GWOT as we know it today.
IMHO, the rules of war must be amended in this situation. The Geneva Convention rules were simply not designed with the GWOT situation in mind. While the U.S. was a signatory to the Convention, our leaders must ensure that our adherence to these rules is tempered by the necessity of winning the present, extremely unconventional war against an unconventional enemy.
Sigaba presents some interesting questions regarding whether our morality is getting in the way of fighting efficiently in the GWOT. My short answer would be "yes". My answer would be historically based.
When Sherman marched through the South, he did more than just find, fix, and neutralize Confederate troops. He burned military stores, destroyed rail lines, and just about anything else that could be used by the South. Likewise, during WWII, the Allies often flew B-17s wingtip to wingtip, bombing entire cities to take out a bearing factory within a city.
The result of this type of warfare was to destroy both the enemy's will, as well as ability, to make war. The morality underlying these actions was that to win quickly and decisively was the most humane way to bring the war to a fast, PROPER conclusion. These actions were undertaken with this motivation in mind.
Obviously, we don't need to "burn down" the entire country of Iraq, and we don't need to level Afghanistan with wingtip-to-wingtip B-17 missions. However, I would argue that we will not have "won" the GWOT until we have destroyed the Muslim extremists' will and ability to make war/conduct terrorist acts. While many situations are presently winnable by winning hearts and minds, our country must also adopt the mindset of "a little more Sherman, a little less Schwarzkopf" in order to be ultimately successful. At least for the present jihad-believing Muslim generations.
See generally the various results of the various Crusades.
|