ScottM
**** it feels good to be a bankster
Re: Global War on Terror III: Dick Cheney's Hague ICC Vacation
Which raises the question of if we are "at war". The act of war is more than a PR campaign, and in the US it requires a definitive action by Congress for a declaration of war. We have "wars" on drugs, poverty, AIDS, etc. and the term "warrior" has become synonomous with some pitcher playing three innings with tendonitis. Moreover, in the current context, with whom are we warring? Afghanistan? Pakistan? al Qaeda? (Whatever that is.) What is this "war on terror" and how do we know if we win?
In my experience, the ones who pontificate the most about the glorious theories, ethics, tactics, morality, etc. of warfare are also the ones least likely to have main crucial choices in combat, including the decision to pull a trigger on another human being. It's easy to write the rules if you will not have to play by them when it counts.
The last 400 years of the development of international law have been wrestling with questions of what moral responsibilities carry over into war. The gist is that both individuals and states have rights of self-preservation, but those rights can't be used to justify just anything, and the simple assertion that the right is in play isn't enough -- you have to meet some standards. Without some sort of overarching framework to guide our actions there's really nothing to distinguish any group of us from any other, and at that point is simply degenerates into vae victis. That is why governments, laws, moral codes and religions were invented in the first place.
Which raises the question of if we are "at war". The act of war is more than a PR campaign, and in the US it requires a definitive action by Congress for a declaration of war. We have "wars" on drugs, poverty, AIDS, etc. and the term "warrior" has become synonomous with some pitcher playing three innings with tendonitis. Moreover, in the current context, with whom are we warring? Afghanistan? Pakistan? al Qaeda? (Whatever that is.) What is this "war on terror" and how do we know if we win?
In my experience, the ones who pontificate the most about the glorious theories, ethics, tactics, morality, etc. of warfare are also the ones least likely to have main crucial choices in combat, including the decision to pull a trigger on another human being. It's easy to write the rules if you will not have to play by them when it counts.