War is War

[Tom Odom]

Again, Steve, I will agree to disagree. Forgetting that people are getting shot (whether they are soldiers or not) is a recipe for disaster. When you use the term "at war" do you hold to the legalistic terms of a declared war?


Bob,

I will disagree with you as well. The folks who put soldiers and civilians were generally those who did not get that war means killing.

Both of you draw neat lines where none exist. I went through a similar exercise in 1994 when we tried debating genocide versus acts of genocide.

Regards.

Tom

[SteveMetz]

Again, no one is advocating "forgetting" about the soldier in the foxhole. But being in a state of war has very specific legal, policy, and strategy implications. For instance, it clearly implies that the solution is at least largely military.

It's simply infeasible to inact those whenever anyone is shot at. This would obliterate the distinction between war and not-war.

[Bob's World]

Again, Steve, I will agree to disagree. Forgetting that people are getting shot (whether they are soldiers or not) is a recipe for disaster. When you use the term "at war" do you hold to the legalistic terms of a declared war?


Bob,

I will disagree with you as well. The folks who put soldiers and civilians were generally those who did not get that war means killing.

Both of you draw neat lines where none exist. I went through a similar exercise in 1994 when we tried debating genocide versus acts of genocide.

Regards.

Tom

To call COIN "War" is illogical once one appreciates what actually causes insurgency. If one firmly believes that insurgency is caused by the insurgent warring against them, and that by defeating that insurgent they win the insurgency, then yes, COIN is war. But as Dr. Metz points out, this typically just suppresses the effects for some period of time, followed by "resurgency."

When we begin to hold governments accountable for their actions we begin to get in front of the current conditions of insurgency that are being exploited by AQ's UW campaign.

When we stop trying to control outcomes in terms of who or how other states are governed as well, we begin to get in front of those same nationalist insurgents buying into the idea that they need to break the support of the US to their government in order to prevail.

So, the insurgencies being riled up by AQ begin to fade when all of those respective governments realize that they need to get their sh$& all in one sock; and the terrorism levied against the US begins to fade once we stop enabling bad behavior in our allied governments. Currently we are enabling bad behavior to the Nth degree in Afghanistan. We enable it in many other countries in much more subtle ways every day as well.

Some choose to blame Islam, or ideology in general, or evil people who don't like us or any number of bogeymen. I prefer to hold governments to task. But that is just me. I don't think the U.S. should be a victim or a bully either one, but that is current strategy "We are a victim, so we have the right to be a bully." We're better than that. We're smarter than that.

[Steve Blair]

Personally I think there's a difference between war (the physical act of conflict and killing...Tom's foxhole level) and being at war (which is more of a political/legal position). None of our Indian Wars were declared, and Congress repeatedly refused to allow any sort of recognition (brevets, mainly) for officers involved in those conflicts (at the time the Medal of Honor was restricted to enlisted men...and before anyone argues, look at the award dates for medals given to officers...they are all after 1891 or so). Yet these were clearly wars...low intensity from the POV of the US, but major conflicts from the Native side.

To carry Slap's point out, trade wars provide another example. I also tend to find that the statement "war is war" is often shorthand for intellectual laziness or an unwillingness to examine certain points or areas of discussion. War may indeed be war, but it has shadings and meanings that give it an almost infinite amount of complexity. It may be about killing, but the amount of killing (and those killed) can vary greatly depending on the context and the existence of an "at war" sentiment (or lack thereof). It might also exist in another realm to gain economic advantage, where killing is limited or nonexistent.

Can't say I'm fully in either major "camp" as they have appeared so far in this thread, but I'm probably closer to Tom's position.

[Eden]

To call COIN "War" is illogical once one appreciates what actually causes insurgency. If one firmly believes that insurgency is caused by the insurgent warring against them, and that by defeating that insurgent they win the insurgency, then yes, COIN is war. But as Dr. Metz points out, this typically just suppresses the effects for some period of time, followed by "resurgency."

But by that measure (i.e., violence settles the issue in dispute once and for all), few armed conflicts would qualify as war.