War on Terrorism

Now that we are deeply mired in the campaign season for Presidential Primaries, our current engagement in and conduct of the "War on Terror" is oft questioned by pundits and waxed a little less than eloquently by brave campaigners.

It amazes me that 6 years into our realization that this battle was launched upon us, we still don't, as a collective people, have a better grasp as to the nature of our warfare. With all the pomp, circumstance and inflated self-importance which is so integral to blogging, I will here attempt to set the record straight.

Misnomer #1: War on Terror

We are not waging a war on "terror". Terror is an internal, emotional reaction to a frightening or dramatic event. Sir Winston Churchill could be said to have waged a war on terror, in this sense, during battle of London in WWII. Through his example, decisiveness and stirring rhetoric, he sought to confront the reactive terror which gripped the hearts of his citizens. While this sort of reinforcement of the American psyche would be an advised addition to the Administration's battle plan, an addition badly lacking of late, it simply is not core to the "long war".

Misnomer #2: War Against Terrorists

CAUTION: Liberal content warning!!!!

Battling Terrorists, as an end goal, is not, primarily, a job for our military in its full weight and stunning lethality. Terrorists, folks who try to invoke terror in innocents for self-selected purposes, are thugs and criminals. Confronting them is largely, in most (no, not all) cases, a job for law enforcement. What? Isn't this sacrilegious for a deeply committed conservative? No, as a conservative, I deploy the full force, fury and frustrating bureaucracy of my government on an extremely limited basis. And I have some examples to back up this point:

1. The Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh. Both were terrorists, both were confronted by law enforcement.
2. The mob / mafia. Organized terrorist families, clans, cells ranging from Prohibition Bootleggers to today's highly structured, multi-state Latino gangs. All of whom have been effectively confronted by law enforcement.
3. Iraqi Police. Its seems as though many of us have taken for granted that when America talks of training up Iraqi "security forces" some of the major focus of this work is on raising competent, non-compromised Iraqi police - often to a greater degree than the Iraqi armed forces.

Conservative readers, you can come back now.

Before moving on I should note that surgical strikes by small groups of highly trained and well armed Special Forces units may be one very appropriate tactic in battling terrorists, but when conducted on foreign soil absent a larger military campaign, these raids are probably far more effective in the long term when coordinated with that country's law enforcement. Conservatives do like to uphold the integrity of national borders of nation states - our own apparently excluded from this otherwise truism.

Misnomer #3: We Can't Declare War on an Idea or Tactic

Ok, admittedly, it did take the Administration far too long after 9/11 to craft some definition around the sort of terrorism against which we would battle. But please don't miss the point, this has been done and the selected definition correctly aligns with who we are as a people both historically and in the modern world. Our long war is not against the idea of terror or terrorism as a tactic. Our long war is specifically against "state-sponsored, international terrorism".

What does this mean? Let's start with what it doesn't mean. This doesn't mean that we have declared direct war on remnants of the Irish Republican Army, Colombia's FARC, Spain's ETA or Aum Shinrikyo of Japan. They all invoke terror (see Misnomer #1 above), but they are all best confronted by the law enforcement efforts of each country. The US may support these efforts through military aid, US military hardware, etc, but we are correct to NOT confront these terrorists (see Misnomer #2 above) through Shock & Awe.

War on Terrorism: What It Means

Our war is against organized groups (things against which we can really declare war) which utilize the legal safety, cultural support and enormous resources of nation states to mobilize terrorists in waging terror tactics against innocents, often in other nations, to secure the self-selected purposes in which they find value. I find it difficult to believe anyone can't grasp this difference between the tactic of terror, the rather limited resources and reach of "local" groups of terrorists and well structured, well funded, well trained, well armed, well coordinated, internationally structured, far-reaching state-sponsored terrorism.

Since history has a whimsical way of smacking us on the collective rear when we ignore it's lessons, I highly recommend the short article "Jefferson Versus the Muslim Pirates" by Christopher Hitchens. Much of what today defines us as "Americans" was born out of our nation's first officially declared war oversees - a war against, gasp!, the idea, nay - the tactic, of piracy.

Gotcha! Not so!

Our Congress declared war and our President Jefferson executed war against state-sponsored piracy. The difference is very, very important. Since the piracy was not some independent group of thugs to be policed, but a coordinated attack of terror upon innocent people (entire cities were raided and possibly 1.5 million Westerners were taken captive as slaves) coordinated from, funded by and under the protection of the nation states of northern Africa. As such, we wage war against the physical arms (slave ships), soldiers (funded pirates) AND the sponsoring homelands of the pirates. By stemming the flow from the state-sponsor, Islamo-piracy eventually receded to irrelevance for centuries - courtesy of a good 'ol butt kicking.

As the T-shirt says: "WAR NEVER SOLVED ANYTHING: Except for Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism"

Hitchen's alludes to much of what is "apple pie" America as having arisen from the fight against state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Our grievances against England as captured in the original draft of the declaration of independence - for his support of the "slave trade" which mirrored the tactics of state-sponsored piracy.

2. The only mention of Armed forces in our Constitution - a Navy for battling the state-sponsors of the Barbary Pirates.

3. The original stanza's of what would later become our national anthem

4. The Marine Corps anthem

5. The liberal tradition of appeasement - John Adam's stance that we should bribe the Muslim states to the sum of 10% of our National Treasury.

Ok, But What Exactly Does It Mean:

Our Constitutional structure arose out of, in part, a struggle similar to ours today. It was designed to support the following principles when battling state-sponsored terrorism:

1. Unite domestically to raise a fearsome military to end the ability of enemy states to sponsor terrorism.
2. Encourage development of friendly governments (since terrorism is also feed through the defacto "state" of culture - ie the KKK in the post-Reconstruction South).
3. Support the local law enforcement efforts of these newly constituted governments to confront the now de-funded and orphaned terrorists.
4. Return home to enjoy the 2 centuries of peace which can only be won through such displays of strength - at least in this fallen world.

One last question.

If you buy into any of the arguments above, what would be the appropriate response to Iran, Syria and the defacto autonomous regions of Pakistan? The answer is obvious, but it would require the same efforts as were required of our Nation's founders - raise an armed force, sufficiently capable of executing the task at hand with sufficient lethality and provide a demonstration of nation will through Congressional declaration.

Then, let's remember, this is a "long war".

Of course, we may learn a lesson from other wars as well:

1. Sometimes we need to commit the same level of resources to rebuilding what we utterly destroy.
2. Sometimes we need to flood defeated foes with the best Ambassadors we have to offer, hundreds of individuals carrying and demonstrating the Love of God for the populace shaken free of terrorist sponsors.

Proud American,
Christian