Acts of War

[juliod]

Judging by the thread in the apologietics forums, the current conflict in Lebanon has left a lot of people unsure what to think. Below are some points I want to make which might be good subjects for debate.

1) Every nation (including Israel) has the inherent right to unleash war on people they consider to be enemies. They do not have to engage in any formal justification, or even explain to anyone why they are doing it.

2) But the nation making war does have to look to the present and future in order to show that the war will make things "better". It must be expected that political constituents and international partners will hold a war-making nation accountable.

3) The mere utility of war as an instrument of policy is extremely doubtful. It is not likely that this conflict will make things "better" (for Israel or anyone else) in the short or long term. The use of conventional forces has dropped clean of the chart since WWII. No military action has yielded tangible benefits for any nation. Israel's many conflicts has not resulted in security and stability. India and Pakistan fought 4 wars and yet resolved none of their differences. Many nations (including the US and the Soviet Union) fought protracted counter-insurgencies, and universally lost. War among lower-tier nations has an equally dismal record over the last 50 years.

4) Individuals also have a right to wage war, but under the risk that they will be treated as a criminal rather than a combatant.

5) Residents of an area have an inherent right to defend against all threats, domestic or foreign. This right is absolute, and no one need obey conventions or legalisms in the defence of their homes and neighborhoods. This leads, however, to some of the most nasty internal fighting, ethnic cleansing, massacre, etc. Powers that seek to control such areas will treat these insurgents as criminals or (usually) worse.

6) The distinction between war and crime is entirely in the hands of the conventional powers. A nation decides how to respond to an incident involving non-nation-states. For example, we decided to respond to 9/11 with a "war" on terror. We decided against the alternative, which was to proceed under a law-enforcement paradigm. Given the well-established dis-utility of warfare, this was probably a mistake.

7) All people have the right to be treated well when captured, even if the "other side" does not do so. All persons have rights, all the time. If a prisoner is an acknowledged combatant, then they must be freely released as soon as the conflict is over. If the prisoner is a "criminal" then they have the right to a speedy trial in a proper forum with a genuine legal process. The current US practise of claiming that certain "illegal combatants" do not have rights is a shameful stain on our national character and history that I never expect to be expunged.

DanZ

[Wyvern]

Judging by the thread in the apologietics forums, the current conflict in Lebanon has left a lot of people unsure what to think. Below are some points I want to make which might be good subjects for debate.

1) Every nation (including Israel) has the inherent right to unleash war on people they consider to be enemies. They do not have to engage in any formal justification, or even explain to anyone why they are doing it.

2) But the nation making war does have to look to the present and future in order to show that the war will make things "better". It must be expected that political constituents and international partners will hold a war-making nation accountable.

3) The mere utility of war as an instrument of policy is extremely doubtful. It is not likely that this conflict will make things "better" (for Israel or anyone else) in the short or long term. The use of conventional forces has dropped clean of the chart since WWII. No military action has yielded tangible benefits for any nation. Israel's many conflicts has not resulted in security and stability. India and Pakistan fought 4 wars and yet resolved none of their differences. Many nations (including the US and the Soviet Union) fought protracted counter-insurgencies, and universally lost. War among lower-tier nations has an equally dismal record over the last 50 years.

4) Individuals also have a right to wage war, but under the risk that they will be treated as a criminal rather than a combatant.

5) Residents of an area have an inherent right to defend against all threats, domestic or foreign. This right is absolute, and no one need obey conventions or legalisms in the defence of their homes and neighborhoods. This leads, however, to some of the most nasty internal fighting, ethnic cleansing, massacre, etc. Powers that seek to control such areas will treat these insurgents as criminals or (usually) worse.

6) The distinction between war and crime is entirely in the hands of the conventional powers. A nation decides how to respond to an incident involving non-nation-states. For example, we decided to respond to 9/11 with a "war" on terror. We decided against the alternative, which was to proceed under a law-enforcement paradigm. Given the well-established dis-utility of warfare, this was probably a mistake.

7) All people have the right to be treated well when captured, even if the "other side" does not do so. All persons have rights, all the time. If a prisoner is an acknowledged combatant, then they must be freely released as soon as the conflict is over. If the prisoner is a "criminal" then they have the right to a speedy trial in a proper forum with a genuine legal process. The current US practise of claiming that certain "illegal combatants" do not have rights is a shameful stain on our national character and history that I never expect to be expunged.

DanZ

1) absolutely true as long as the country that is on the offensive is willing to take on the negatives that come along with being the aggressor. The first gulf war is a good example of this, in which Iraq invaded Kuwait with little justification, the international reaction was horribly underestimated on the Iraqi's part.

2) Getting back to the current war. Israel more than likely will not be held accountable by its main backer, i.e. the U.S. As far as making things better, for Israel I believe it is more a case of reinforcing a lesson that was made to the previous generation. For a generation Israel has been more or less peaceful which for some reason causes more aggressive cultures to think of their adversaries as being a pushover, no matter the evidence may be to the contrary. All but one of the Japanese military hierarchy made this same mistake about america that hezbullah now makes about Israel. I believe Israel is looking into the future in their actions of the present. In devastating Lebanon(is there any other word to properly describe what the Israeli's are doing?) in order to make them throw out foreign military units and secure their own borders, Israel is hoping to secure their own borders and keep Syria/Iran at arms length.

3)Granted standard warfare is becoming increasingly useless which is why many nations are putting a much greater emphasis on asymmetrical warfare as I think they now call it, i.e. special forces/insurgents/terrorists. Just because war is mostly off the books as a tool of diplomacy doesn't mean that warfare isn't.

4)This was the case during the american revolution and hasn't really changed since. Other than the conditions of incarceration have improved considerably.

5)Absolutely, but as we have seen in Rwanda this can go overboard, same thing with the former Yugoslavian conflict, where do you draw the line for defending ones home and merely killing anyone that isn't like you?

6)Again you are quite correct, america would have been much better served treating the whole thing like a criminal conspiracy instead of a war, granted the islamist jihadists have always considered it a war but as mentioned earlier it is an asymmetrical war at best. Giving a bit of personal opinion I think the decision to call it a war was a naive political decision based on the idea that if we call it a war they would all pop up like gophers to get whacked.

7)By far the most egregious thing america has done in the war on terror, and thats saying something. If you declare war you treat them as prisoners of war, there should be no question on this matter. Instead the present administration calls the enemy combatants and makes up new rules on how to deal with them.

[Cephus]

1) Every nation (including Israel) has the inherent right to unleash war on people they consider to be enemies. They do not have to engage in any formal justification, or even explain to anyone why they are doing it.

Depends. I don't see anyone giving anyone a right to do anything in this arena. Certainly, the strong nations have the ability to stomp on the weaker nations, unless someone even stronger comes along and stomps on them in return. The US, for instance, figures it can invade, destabilize and destroy any nation they want because they're the big dogs on the block, but if someone like, oh, Iraq comes along and invades Kuwait, they get stomped on big time.

It's all a bunch of hypocracy.

[Metatron]

6) The distinction between war and crime is entirely in the hands of the conventional powers. A nation decides how to respond to an incident involving non-nation-states. For example, we decided to respond to 9/11 with a "war" on terror. We decided against the alternative, which was to proceed under a law-enforcement paradigm. Given the well-established dis-utility of warfare, this was probably a mistake.

DanZ

As concerns 9/11, I have to disagree as far the conflict with Al Qaeda is concerned. Had the training and logistics infrastructure of Al Qaeda been located in the U.S. or another nation that respects the rule of law, then indeed a law-enforcement paradigm as you put it would have been appropriate. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

Al Qaeda's training facilities and leadership were located in Afghanistan where the Taliban gave them aid and protection. There was no way that the Taliban was going to cooperate in the dismantling of Al Qaeda and indeed were more likely to assist them in future efforts. Since the law enforcement route was closed to us in Afghanistan, our choices were allow Al Qaeda to plan and train for their next attack unhindered or use our armed forces to destroy or at least disrupt their forces in Afghanistan.
To my mind, the decision was pretty obvious. Now whether it was a good idea to expand the "War on Terror" to secular Iraq is another question.....

[Cephus]

Al Qaeda's training facilities and leadership were located in Afghanistan where the Taliban gave them aid and protection. There was no way that the Taliban was going to cooperate in the dismantling of Al Qaeda and indeed were more likely to assist them in future efforts. Since the law enforcement route was closed to us in Afghanistan, our choices were allow Al Qaeda to plan and train for their next attack unhindered or use our armed forces to destroy or at least disrupt their forces in Afghanistan.

But there are plenty of other countries that are giving aid and protection to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, but they're our "friends", so we're not going to attack them. The simple reality is, Afghanistan was a thorn in our side and we took out their government. We used terrorism as an excuse, nothing more. Then we moved on to another government that was a thorn in our side, Iraq. If Bush has his way, we'll move on to another nation that we have political problems with next.

This isn't about terrorism, it's about picking targets that the US doesn't like.

To my mind, the decision was pretty obvious. Now whether it was a good idea to expand the "War on Terror" to secular Iraq is another question.....

The whole point of the entire so-called "War on Terror" was to get into Iraq, that's what Bush wanted on day 1 of his presidency. That's why they lied about Saddam's involvement, they had to somehow link Iraq to Al Qaeda.

[juliod]

There was no way that the Taliban was going to cooperate in the dismantling of Al Qaeda and indeed were more likely to assist them in future efforts.

In addition to what Cephus has written, I question your use of "no way". It's impossible to remember now, but the world was so deeply horrified by the events of 9/11 that I suspect we could have made Osama bin Laden a pariah, even among his notional supporters. (Why was he in Afghanistan? Because the Sudan wouldn't have him.)

Could the Law-Enforcement option have done worse than the military? After all, have we captured or killed ObL?

Nope. Our dedication to the rule of force over the rule of law has strengthened our enemies.

And as far as our military action, we've only repeated the Soviet experience, to almost an exact replica. We came in, destabilized an already unstable country, seized Kabul against no resistance, installed a "Mayor of Kabul", and have almost no control over the rest of the country. The Mayor of Kabul can only remain in place by the protection of outside security contractors, the heroin trade is building up again, and the countryside is controlled by local warlords. (And, of course, Bagram AFB is being used a secret torture complex.)

DanZ

[Metatron]

But there are plenty of other countries that are giving aid and protection to Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, but they're our "friends", so we're not going to attack them. The simple reality is, Afghanistan was a thorn in our side and we took out their government. We used terrorism as an excuse, nothing more. Then we moved on to another government that was a thorn in our side, Iraq. If Bush has his way, we'll move on to another nation that we have political problems with next.

This isn't about terrorism, it's about picking targets that the US doesn't like.

I agree that Iraq had been a major thorn in the U.S. side for a long time and that Bush used the War on Terror as cover for taking them down but I strongly disagree that the motivation for Afghanistan was other than what I stated. You state: "The simple reality is, Afghanistan was a thorn in our side and we took out their government." How so? Since the fall of the Soviet Union, our interest in Afghanistan could be summed up as zip, nada, zilch. Why would we give a hoot about a landlocked Central Asian nation with no oil or significant mineralogical wealth? Until Al Qaeda reared their ugly head, Afghanistan was about as significant to the U.S. as Mongolia or the Central African Republic, in other words, not at all. The notion that we would want to spend billions of dollars and deploy thousands of troops to knock off an obscure Asian nation ruled by Muslim whackjobs with no discernible export except for opium without the Al Qaeda factor is frankly absurd.

As for the other Muslim nations providing support that you allude to, yes we are not attacking them because they are allegedly our friends. One can debate whether they truly meet the criteria of friend under the circumstances, but since we are classifying them that way, we are attempting diplomacy and Juliod's law enforcement paradigm with them. Only time will tell if that will work out.

[Metatron]

There was no way that the Taliban was going to cooperate in the dismantling of Al Qaeda and indeed were more likely to assist them in future efforts.

In addition to what Cephus has written, I question your use of "no way". It's impossible to remember now, but the world was so deeply horrified by the events of 9/11 that I suspect we could have made Osama bin Laden a pariah, even among his notional supporters. (Why was he in Afghanistan? Because the Sudan wouldn't have him.)

Could the Law-Enforcement option have done worse than the military? After all, have we captured or killed ObL?

Nope. Our dedication to the rule of force over the rule of law has strengthened our enemies.

And as far as our military action, we've only repeated the Soviet experience, to almost an exact replica. We came in, destabilized an already unstable country, seized Kabul against no resistance, installed a "Mayor of Kabul", and have almost no control over the rest of the country. The Mayor of Kabul can only remain in place by the protection of outside security contractors, the heroin trade is building up again, and the countryside is controlled by local warlords. (And, of course, Bagram AFB is being used a secret torture complex.)

DanZ

And we also smashed Al Qaeda's training facilities, killed large number of Al Qaeda fighters, wreaked havoc with their logistical capabilities, drove the rest of them into the mountains, and have not experienced another attack on our soil since 9/11.

I would be interested in hearing more about how we could have used your law enforcement paradigm in Afghanistan. I want you to tell me with a straight face (which regrettably I won't be able to see) that the Taliban would have sold their Al Qaeda buddies down the river because we asked them real nice. Next thing you'll tell me that Iran will give up on Hezbollah if we say pretty please!

[micatala]

It is unclear to me why the 'law enforcement' paradigm automatically assumes action within countries with their cooperation.

I agree that is the usual context, but it seems to me that some nations have taken what I would call 'law enforcement' actions unilaterally across national borders. Have not both the Israelis and the U.S. taken people into custody that were not within their borders without the consent of the governments where the 'arrests' were made?

Also, the 'war' paradigm typically assumes the war is between two states or governments. Certainly we all acknowledge this is not the case in the war on terror.

The current situation does not fit into either traditional paradigm. However, to the extent that how one characterizes the conflict, I agree that characterizing it as a law enforcement issue is more appropriate, and also would have been more beneficial for the U.S. By characterizing this as a war on terror, I believe we played into the terrorists hands. A war is exactly the way they want to characterize it. A war implies that both sides have the same opportunity to make their case that their cause is just. Criminals are by definition (except in very exceptional cases) acting unjustly.

ALso, characterizing it as a war does make it easier to make the domestic populations (in the U.S. and other areas that are seen to be targets of the terrorists) more afraid. People are afraid of crime, but people perceive crime in a different way than war, even horrendous crimes like the 9/11 attacks. I think this was one of the reasons Bush and company decided to call this a war. I think they feared they would not get the support for what they wanted to do, and what they thought needed to be done, without this characterization.

However, I think this was a mistake. I am not saying they should not have moved aggressively against the terrorists, nor that the military should not have any role. BUt I do think the downside of using military power to the extent we have in the context of a war was not taken into account, and has made the situation arguably much, much worse than it would otherwise have been.

[Cephus]

I agree that Iraq had been a major thorn in the U.S. side for a long time and that Bush used the War on Terror as cover for taking them down but I strongly disagree that the motivation for Afghanistan was other than what I stated.

Bush knew nobody would buy an invasion of Iraq as the first stop in his magical, mystical World Terrorism Tour since we couldn't justify them having anything whatsoever to do with 9/11 so he picked another target that had a government that was an embarassment to the US (since we had backed them in the war with Russia and they turned into a bunch of sick bastards) so off we went to Afghanistan. Once people were used to the idea of the war, Bush and Cheney lied about their reasons for wanting to go into Iraq and pulled their invasion, just like Bush had been planning since day one of his administration.

We didn't want bin Laden. We still don't. He's just a convenient excuse to go forcing our will on people in the Middle East.