|
I'll tell you why I think definitions are important:
If we cannot define what / whom we are fighting and why, we cannot win. If we are confused, we cannot win.
I think that the writer is saying we need to be on the same page about what we are doing. He is showing the confusion that exists out there, even among the people "who should know better".
If we understand implicitly and explicitly why we are fighting, then that is the first step to defeating the enemy. When I say "we" I am not talking about the type of person who would post on this board, I am talking about the general populations of our countries. They have to know what our soldiers and intel agencies are trying to achieve and why. Unfortunately, I don't think they do.
By using weasel words such as "man-caused disasters", by not using words like "terrorist", "islamist" or "jihadist" and instead talk about "militants" or angry young men etc, we start to blinker ourselves. We intentionally take away our sight of who the enemy is.
It is important to know the difference between an act of terrorism and an act of war. Targeting combatants in the AO is an act of war, not an act of terrorism. We are at war in order to prevent further acts of terrorism. More than that, we are at war to prevent a particular ideology (islamism) from being able to achieve its aims (which have been explained clearly in many threads here).
So many Western gvt's are moving away from using clear definitions, the US, the UK, Aus that I am afraid we are setting ourselves up for disaster. If the populations of our countries don't understand what all this is about, then they will vote to end this war before it's time, which will result (in the short term) in acts of terrorism on our streets, and worse than that in the longer term.
My (humble) 2c.
G
|