There are several definitions for “war” in my dictionary. The one that seems most appropriate with regard to the “War on Terror” is
A concerted effort or campaign to combat or put an end to something considered injurious: e.g., the war against acid rain.
One definition that does not seem appropriate, but is actually a more widely understood definition of “war” is
A period of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
I bring this up because the WoT is discussed as if it were both of these at the same time, and that causes confusion and resistance to supporting certain phases of it. I bring this up now because of one US response to a Human Rights Watch report that lists abuses by US forces in Afghanistan, which it describes as “almost entirely outside the rule of law.” The full report is available here.
Asked about the Human Rights Watch allegations, Lt Col Bryan Hilferty, the US military spokesman in Afghanistan, said: “We’ve seen the report, we are taking the allegations seriously.”
But he continued: “We feel it shows a lack of understanding of the laws of war and of the environment we are facing in Afghanistan.
“They say we should be using police procedures when we carry out arrests, but this is a combat zone.”
Now before anyone rushes to use their “Blame America First Crowd” macro (“SHIFT” 2 U [?]), this US defense, which I would normally agree with, only struck me as unusual because on many levels I had assumed the “war” (definition 2) in Afghanistan was “over.” Admittedly, I’m basing that assumption on the developments there (such as the signing of a Constitution) that normally come after a war is over, but I understand that we’re still pursuing AQ and ObL there and meeting armed resistance. Still, I’m not the only one who’s confused.
This headline from Time magazine
The U.S. Says the Afghanistan War Is Over. The Taliban Aren’t So Sure
illustrates how the overlapping of these two definitions all but demands a new definition of “war.” At some level, one could just write this off as sloppy journalism, as within the article, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying: “we clearly have moved from major combat activity to a period of stability and stabilization and reconstruction activities.” He didn’t actually say, “The war is over.” But neither did he clarify what the new definition (or lack thereof) means with regard to traditional “post-war” activities or traditional “during war” practices regarding human rights.
It feels like we’re waging war and fighting for peace simultaneously, and whereas those may not be philosophically or even practically exclusive, rhetorically, they’re a bit chaotic. When it comes to human rights, they’re clearly an all-out mess.
UPDATED to correct typos and clarify ideas.
The Afghanistan War is over. The Taliban is out of power and a new government is in place. The War on Terror, one of the principal parties of which is al Qaeda, happen to have elements in Afghanistan. As for the Taliban, it’s hard to distinguish where a Talibani ends and an al Qaeda operative begins.
Well, Bird Dog, until today I would have agreed with you, but Lt Col Bryan Hilferty defended the US against the Human Rights Watch abuses report by saying it “shows a lack of understanding of the laws of war.”
Perhaps he should have said it “”shows a lack of understanding of the laws of stabilization and reconstruction activities.”
War is still there in Afghanistan, hence the laws of war still apply. The nature of one phase of the war (upended Taliban) is over, but the larger war still remains.
Nice post.
The choice of words you use, and when you use them, have become buzz words for which side you are on in the debate. And its also a shorthand way to dismiss other ideas (don’t think its a war? — you are an Osama lover!)
I have always been suspicious of an over-pedantic concern about the literal definition and use of words in discourse. Ideas typically can be expressed in a multitude of ways, and it does little good to focus debate literally on choice of words and exact definitions. Too much political philosophy seems to cause this error in thinking. Yeah, it would be easier if everyone always used word in the same way since we would all know exactly what each meant. But its also boring.
So the human rights issue in Afghanistan? It should turn on what makes sense in prosecuting an insurgency/guerilla war in that culture as well as our own values — not on labels of the polar extremes of nation-state war vs. police activity. Seems like the debate about words (war vs. police action) tries to spin the issue into one of the extremes to then justify extreme positions.
Legal considerations require a literal focus on words when you are parsing textual rules, but policy considerations do not.
For example, the Gitmo captives fall between legal cracks, but the policy of indefinite detention without rights sucks. I don’t care how you define the conflict, we should not be in the business of lettres de cachet.
The nature of one phase of the war (upended Taliban) is over, but the larger war still remains.
Which proves my point, Bird Dog. You’re using two different definitions in this same sentence.
Nice analysis dmbeaster.
Edward, under your chosen definition of war: A period of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
I’ll put emphasis on parties since al Qaeda is neither nation nor state. The Afghan War (or you could it a battle) was part of the larger War on Terror. Pursuing al Qaeda in Afghanistan is part and parcel of the same war. Two phases or aspects of the same war, both falling under the one definition.
Actually, Bird Dog, I think the other definition is a better one for the WoT (perhaps I should clarify that).
Unless, as you suggest, we call Afghanistan and Iraq “battles.”
Unless, as you suggest, we call Afghanistan and Iraq “battles.”
Exactly.
I actually would call Afghanistan and Iraq battles, but I don’t really think that is the main point. The problem is that our enemies aren’t fighting according to the Geneva Convention rules. We can’t sign a surrender document, we can’t enforce an armistice, all of the normal ways of ending a war are unavailable. So of course we are going to have fuzzy definitional problems, our enemies aren’t fighting a war in the same way that our enemies have in the past.
What kind of war is it? I think there are a lot of parallels between current War on Terror and low grade Cold War conflicts that now seems like a memory. There is the obvious difference that the Cold War was ultimately against a nation state. But in terms of actual conflict, since the nuclear paradigm prevented actual war between the nation states, we fought many low grade conflicts against shadow groups, and the war was at the core an ideological conflict where success turned on winning ideological converts — not in terms of armies beaten or territory won.
This article in today’s (3/8) LA Times as well as Edward’s post made me think about this — the article is about how the Marines returning to Iraq are relying on their 1940 Small Wars Manual to provide doctrine. Funny how some things don’t really change.
In my own opinion, the Cold War presented a much greater threat to our way of life than the current War on Terror, with the one exception that the terrorists have the ability and the audacity to kill us in our homeland — but that’s their one and only edge. They are not nearly as powerful a foe in the long run. And the key to long term success remains ideological.
So of course we are going to have fuzzy definitional problems, our enemies aren’t fighting a war in the same way that our enemies have in the past.
I would agree, but that “fuzziness” gets pushed aside in the debate over dissent and opponents of the Iraq invasion are called weak on terrorism and other b.s. like that. If the critics of dissenters are going to be so clear cut in their criticism, it behooves them to be more clear cut in their definitions.
“our enemies aren’t fighting a war in the same way that our enemies have in the past”
This is pretty clearly untrue to even a neophyte war scholar like myself. And one doesn’t even have to fall back to the Mother of All War Analogies: Vietnam. But your belief is understandable, since the Father of All War Analogies is still World War II.
It also begs the question of whether we adhere to such conventions because it is a mutual back-scratching arrangement (don’t kill our civilians and we won’t kill yours), or whether it’s because we adhere to the principles contained therein.
I don’t doubt that for many of the people in charge of our military and many people here, it is a backscratching arrangement, and any adherence to principles of ethical conduct simply reflect weakness and a lack of will. That’s a shame.
“and any adherence to principles of ethical conduct”
I should clarify that because it isn’t exactly what I mean. I don’t mean any principles of ethical conduct. I’m not saying such people are unethical. But that principles such as ‘don’t torture prisoners’, ‘do your utmost not to harm civilians’, ‘never use landmines’ and so on are to them arguable given certain exigencies. I can understand this viewpoint to a certain degree and I’m not trying to castigate anyone. But I still think it’s wrong.