Mexicans invited in American settlers to serve as a buffer between them and the Comanche. And no, it was not really war. For the settlers it was what they believed to be an acceptable risk. Life. A chance for opportunity they could not afford in the East, and probably enabled by a belief that the Indians weren't nearly as bad as the stories claimed. For the Comanche it was just being Comanche. Raiding was part of life for them, and the Americans brought riches with them. But for 95% of America this was all legend and the nation clearly was not at war.
Just because AQ, some handful of guys, declare war on the most powerful nation, it does not mean that nation is at war. Does it mean we need to pay attention and deal with those guys? Sure, but "war" is perhaps the least effective way do so. At least judging by the effects of that approach.
The reality is that we need new laws, policies, practices, etc for more effectively deterring state actors that are not deterred by our old approaches in the current environment. We need the same for actively engaging, when necessary, short of war, to impose costs and to disrupt their actions. This is not that war has changed, it is simply that in a time of laws and being a nation of laws, we build boxes that shape the way we classify and can in turn respond to situations. We also need better legal/policy constructs for dealing with non-state actors. War status and CT strategies are a proven disaster. We need to get smarter and smaller, not more reactive and bigger.
I do not believe the best answer is to simply make all things war, to do so is in effect for the US to openly declare a perpetual state of war on the world. What could be more isolationist than that??
Bookmarks