While the Commissar of The Politburo Diktat rightly points out that there is indeed a real threat from groups who use terrorist tactics, calling it a “war” is wrong on many fronts, not limited to the terminology alone, but also because the strategy and tactics we are using are appropriate for wars past, not the “21st Century Thinking” that those who are promoting the so-called “War on Terror” like to use as a club against their political opponents.

Strategy and tactics, the line between the two is always blurry, and one affects the other, often in ways far wider ranging than those who believe they have control of how the conflict is waged comprehend.

Exactly what kind of conflict are we currently engaged upon? It is not a “War on Terror” as claimed by those who want to frighten us, even from the simple semantic viewpoint that one cannot engage upon a war against a tactic. Aside from the difficulties of definition that the single-minded have, an understanding of the nature of the conflict is required before the correct strategy and tactics can be determined and used.

An example, the Cold War, we must ask ourselves, exactly how did we win it?

For once, the semantics were correct, it was indeed a Cold War, except for the isolated hot spots of Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan, limiting that count to the significant conflicts of that struggle where although many died or were wounded physically and mentally, the numbers were still in very small proportion to the magnitude of the contest. This is not to minimize the lives lost or ruined, but we did call it the Cold War, even when it heated up in some areas.

Think about the semantics both past and present, now we want to declare a “War on Terror” to rally the population to a particular viewpoint.

But the question remains, how did we win the so-called “Cold War” that wasn’t so cold after all?

As currently presented, we are in a war of ideologies, a war of ideals, markedly similar to the Cold War. So did we win that conflict merely by spending the Soviet Union to death?

I think not.

Contests of ideals are not won by money alone, no matter what economic theory says.

It is the cause, not the death, that makes the martyr.
—
There are only two forces in the world, the sword and the spirit. In the long run the sword will always be conquered by the spirit.
—
The moral is to the physical as three is to one.
   -Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)

Our “War on Terror” is not a war with a nation, we do not have the simplicity of the Second World War to comfort us, nor do we have the easy bipolarity of nations aligned with Communism or Democracy as we liked to frame the Cold War. Instead, we have the blowback from our actions in the Cold War, a conflict that arose from the unlikely alliances we made during those years of seemingly clearly defined good and evil when we made pacts with one devil to defeat another seemingly greater evil, yet somehow the numbers butchered by our allies may have matched or even exceeded those murdered on an industrial scale by our World War II enemies.

Examine the recent battles and their wider effects.

First, the suicides in Guantanamo make a fine example of how the battles are being waged, and lost, by the United States. While the government of the United States is distancing itself from the comments of a diplomat claiming the suicides were “good PR” for the jihadists, the assertions by the military that the suicides were “an act of asymmetrical warfare” draw more ridicule than sympathy from the world. Our nominal allies, the Saudis, are questioning whether the prisoners truly committed suicide or were murdered in the course of torture.

Are we able to win any kind of moral victory in any sense of the word “moral” while maintaining a deliberately extra-legal prison at Guantanamo? Regardless of the protestations of those who want vengeance, not justice, it is important to remember that upon embarking on a course of revenge, one should first dig two graves.

What is the wider meaning in a society that claims that we are a nation ruled by laws, not men?

Remember, if we are in a war, it is a world-wide war, a war of ideas and ideals that is fought in the hearts and minds of the world, not on some physical battlefield.

A second battle did indeed take place upon a battlefield, but its effects have strategic rather than merely tactical implications. Haditha, this incident may or may not become iconic, but even without the perspective of history and assuming that all sides are telling their truth in the matter, the effects are not positive for our cause. Some of the marines involved are stating they followed the rules of engagement, and there is no reason to doubt that they adhered to orders. It raises the question of what determines the rules of engagement, what the fundamental goals and rationales are that drive exactly how the rules are written. Any humane commander wants to preserve the lives of his men, and if anything after all our proclamations of the need for “21st century thinking” that apparently involve negating the 19th century ideals underlying our Constitution differentiates ourselves from our enemies, it is our unwillingness to sacrifice our own men for insufficient cause.

If the rules of engagement were followed, and it is worth repeating, there is no reason to assume they were not, regardless of any supposed cover-up of any civilian, non-combatant deaths, for that would involve the collusion of many higher up the command chain than those directly involved in the incident itself. However, what were the rules of engagement focused upon? Preserving the lives of the soldiers involved, minimizing civilian casualties, or trying to strike a balance between the two?

It is a complex situation, but ultimately in the world, not limited to our own, ADD age, the simple explanation is the one that influences the most hearts and minds, and the simple explanation is that of a wanton massacre, whether officially sanctioned or not, and in either case it reflects badly upon us.

At the end of the Cold War, how was the United States perceived by the world? The conception of us was significantly more positive than that of the Soviet Union, and it was based not in any small part upon the actions of the USSR upon both its own citizens along with how that government acted in the world at large.

How did we win that war?

He who fears being conquered is sure of defeat.
   -Napoleon Bonaparte (1769 - 1821)

Our greatest danger of losing came when we reacted out of fear.

What has been our reaction to September 11, 2001?

Fear.

In that response we have given our enemies their greatest victories. It is not for naught their tactics are called “terrorism” for their goal is to strike terror in their opponents, and we ourselves have served their ends to far greater an extent than they could have hoped in their wildest dreams.

Consider our reactions and subsequent actions, and think about the larger picture, and decide if our actions are truly carrying us towards victory.

Technorati Tags: commentary, history, Iraq, Iraq Occupation, Iraq War, opinion, terrorism, War in Iraq, War on Terror