Ruminations, January 3, 2010

The war on whatever

On September 11, 2001, the United States went to war. It was unlike our previous wars. We had no named opponent as we had in our previous wars – even those wars that were not officially declared had named opponents. In World War II, we fought Japan , Germany and Italy . In the Korean and Vietnam undeclared Wars, our enemies were the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese. On September 11, we went to war against … somebody. Who?

For lack of a better name, it was decreed to be the War on Terror. But the War on Terror is a bad name. Terror – or more accurately, terrorism — is a technique. You can’t declare war on a technique because the technique will always be there and never surrenders. In fact, it’s not even a war on all terrorists. Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City and killed 168 people was a terrorist and so was “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski who killed three people – but, while not giving them a pass, we are not at “war” with the likes of McVeigh and Kaczynski: We don’t send tanks, aircraft and Marines to take these people out.

Are we truly at war with terrorists in Afghanistan ? What is the definition of a terrorist? According to the Princeton definition, a terrorist is one who employs “the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) againstcivilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear,” (my emphasis).

This isn’t the first time we have taken military action against an amorphous group that had no country. In the 18^th century, pirates attacked ships in the Mediterranean and we went to war against hostis humani generis(enemies of all humankind). It was on this note that William Blackstone of Blackstone’s Law stated, “Given that a pirate, has renounced all the benefits of society and government, and has reduced himself afresh to the savage state of nature, by declaring war against all mankind, all mankind must declare war against him.”

But just who are we fighting today? Hostis humani generis? Someone who has declared “war against all mankind” or some group who has declared war against America and her allies?

The definition of hostis humani generis seems to closer to the cases of McVeigh and Kaczynski who targeted civilians but does it apply to Osama bin Laden and his cohort? It’s true that civilians were killed on September 11 but was that collateral damage? Were the targets the American military (Pentagon), the American financial system ( World Trade Center ) and the American government (the nation’s capital or White House – wherever Flight 93 was targeted)?

When Major Nidal Malik Hasan gunned own 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood , Texas , some were quick to label it a “terrorist act.” But this wasn’t an attack on civilians, it was an attack on our military and, in time of war, the military is a fair target. The fact that Hasan was also a member of that military can make his act treasonous, subversive or traitorous, but it was not terrorism.

Certainly our enemy uses terrorism against civilians in an attempt to intimidate or instill fear in the civilian population; there are almost daily attacks on civilians in Iraq , Afghanistan and Pakistan, not to mention the Christmas Day attempt to kill civilians aboard Flight 253 to Detroit by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

We are most assuredly fighting al Qaeda and all its franchisees in Iraq and now Yemen . And, we are fighting their allies – the Taliban. But we are definitely NOT at war with the world’s one billion Muslims although it does seem that our enemies are Muslims.

To add another level of complexity, there is one other significant player that works with our enemies against us through clandestine activities.. It has been called “a state supporter of terrorism.” That player is Iran . While it’s true that Iran and al Qaeda have different objectives, a common opponent can cause entities with different objectives to work together as Iran has with al Qaeda in Iraq and with the Taliban in Afghanistan .

Whether or not we choose to do anything about Iran at this point – and, in the area on international politics as well as the domestic upheaval in Iran — it might be wiser to not include them as an enemy.

We have been at war for eight years now and it might be reasonable to define our enemy succinctly. It is al Qaeda and their fellow travelers. It might better serve our purpose, especially among the 999 million plus peaceable Muslims, to be specific.

Obama’s credibility gap

President Barack Obama has stated that the new health care plan will not increase the federal deficit. According to the latest Rasmussen poll (December 30), 11 percent of the American public believe him.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that the majority of Americans in the poll who disagree with him are right; they may be wrong. But what we do know is that the majority of Americans are looking at the President and saying, in effect, “We distrust you on health care and the deficit.” If the president does not take steps to resolve this credibility discrepancy on health care and the deficit, it is only a matter of time before disbelief creeps over into other areas and the great majority of Americans begin to suspect his entire presidency. A skeptical public makes governing difficult, to say the least.

It seems Obama can do only one of two things to resolve this credibility gap: argue harder or alter the financial problems this health care plan creates. Unfortunately, it appears that Obama has opted for arguing harder.

Banned words

Once again, Lake Superior State University (LSSU) has come up with a list of words that should be banned for the new year because their overuse in the previous year has made them hackneyed. Here is their list:

• Shovel ready
• Transparent/transparency
• Czar
• Tweet
• App
• Sexting
• Friend (as a verb)
• Teachable moment
• In these economic times…
• Stimulus
• Toxic assets
• Too big to fail
• Bromance
• Chillaxin’
• Obama (prefix or roots)

Unfortunately, LSSU’s success rate at banning words has been poor. In 2009, for example, they proposed banning the words green, carbon footprint or carbon off-setting, Main Street/Wall Street , and icon. Oh well, at least they gave it the old college try.