A Terrorist Fights, But Is He A Soldier? It Depends on Who You Ask.

Once you get beyond the apparent irrationality of the phrase, "laws of war," and look closely at the terms, juridical dilemmas abound. Despite the fact that George II's "War on Terror" is now half a decade old, debate over the most fundamental aspects of how that war is waged is still very much ongoing.

Today on the Op-Ed page of the New York Times, retired four-star General Wesley Clark gets down and dirty with those terms of international law and asks the question, is a terrorist a soldier? In short, he argues that terrorists need to be considered more like "modern-day pirates than warriors."

At first glance, "modern-day pirate" may seem like a flilppant phrase, but it is tough to get one by Clark, considering that he not only graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point but also took a master's degree in military science from the Command and General Staff College. In fact, the term "pirate" is used with deft attention to character.

A pirate is a criminal on the high seas. The latter fall under the jurisdiction of no nation, and the former, therefore, work on behalf of no sovereign. It is an interesting parallel to draw with a roving terrorist organization like al-Qaeda.

George II's administration has chosen to treat captured terrorists as enemy combatants. Clark writes, "By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process." The crux of his argument follows:

If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

As Clark goes on to posit that terrorists ought to be tried in the court system, the elephant in the room begins to snort; perhaps the bigger problem here is the waging of a war without end, as the details of such a conflict will tie down any possibility of success?

(Photo from Roger G1's flickr.)

Comments

[Christen]

I believe that General Clark is right on and we need to reframe the debate as it should have been framed from the beginning. Unfortunately however, Iraq is such a mess that it is tying up so many resources and showing us to be rather impotent. We are still having difficulty with the Taliban reconstituting in Afghanistan and there are serious concerns about whether we can successfully fend off potential future conflicts while tied up there. I truly do not get what the W administration thinks it is doing unless they are just a bunch of greedy businessmen letting our soldiers die for business interests in the middle east like the liberals say. There really is no other plausible explanation than that, unless they really are completely stupid regarding international affairs.

P.S. Don't get me started on Condi Rice as NSA or SOS either.

[mr big dicks hot chicks]

As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

[mr big dicks hot chicks]

If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. As a result, terrorism should be fought first with information exchanges and law enforcement, then with more effective domestic security measures. Only as a last resort should we call on the military and label such activities “war.” The formula for defeating terrorism is well known and time-proven.

[Kondor]

Despite the fact that George II's "War on Terror" is now half a decade old, debate over the most fundamental aspects of how that war is waged is still very much ongoing. where to buy steroids

[Jessy]

A pirate is a criminal on the high seas. The latter fall under the jurisdiction of no nation, and the former, therefore, work on behalf of no sovereign. It is an interesting parallel to draw with a roving terrorist organization like al-Qaeda. steroids for sales

[Din]

George II's administration has chosen to treat captured terrorists as enemy combatants. Clark writes, "By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. steroids