Warfare is difficult to plan, train for, execute, and win; we refer to the “art and science” of warfare because of this complexity, and because the stakes are so high. But military science has been with us for a very long time. Perhaps the earliest contributor was a Chinese general named Sun Tzu. Amazingly, his work entitled The Art of War continues to influence contemporary military scientists despite the fact it is 2,600 years old. Sun Tzu was a realist who confined his writing to how best to prosecute conflict. Italy’s Niccolo Machiavelli published The Prince in 1532, in which he describes the art form by which a ruler can retain control of his realm, including treatises on the realism of politics, rather than the ideal. Prussian Major General Carl von Clausewitz developed nine intricate principles of warfare, based on his first-hand observations of the Napoleonic wars. More recently, Sir Michael Howard developed a methodology for the study of military history that includes broad sociological factors, an important contribution because an understanding of a belligerent’s culture could influence the way nations prosecute warfare.
History seems to validate suppositions made by Clausewitz and Howard – the conduct of soldiers in warfare is reflective of the expectations of the citizens they represent. Numerous examples of atrocities during two world wars resulted in the adoption of standards for martial behavior. During World War II, unacceptable Japanese behavior toward Prisoners of War (POW) included summary execution by beheading, feeding captives to sharks off the coast of the Philippines, and of course, the Bataan Death March was exactly that. Still other POWs became guinea pigs for medical experimentation. Germany also committed unspeakable acts during World War II, which led to the Nuremburg Trials. To the extent that any Japanese or German citizens were aware of such atrocities, their silence was deafening.
Following World War II, nations recognized the need to develop standards for regulating the conduct of combatants, holding them to higher standards of behavior. The laws of land warfare are embodied in what we refer to as the Geneva Convention, which was actually a series of meetings committed to limiting the horror of war to combatants themselves – as much as it is possible to do so. The essential elements of the Law of Land Warfare are to (1) protect combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering, (2) safeguard fundamental human rights of those who fall into the hands of belligerents, including prisoners of war, the wounded, the sick, and civilians, and (3) to facilitate the restoration of peaceful coexistence.
General Clausewitz also argued that in the conduct of war, military strategies must reflect the nation’s political objectives because without an understanding of what the national leadership expects to achieve from war, it is impossible to devise effective strategies to accomplish them. Clausewitz also suggested that the social implications of warfare are every bit as important as battlefield tactics, because without the full support of the nation, it is impossible to realize military objectives. In order to gain and retain the support of a nation’s citizens, it is necessary that a country’s military will conduct itself in a manner that does not offend social sensibilities.
Today, civilized nations demand that their warriors observe certain (chivalrous) ethical standards. Limiting collateral damage in a combat area is one example of protecting non-combatants from unnecessary suffering, a factor that led to the development of high-tech ordnance and so-called “surgical strikes” on targets located in highly populated areas. Civilized societies demand the protection of the innocent insofar as it is possible, and they expect humane treatment of POWs. Today, we expect our soldiers to accept an enemy’s surrender without malice, to protect them from harm, treat their wounds and illnesses, and treat them respectfully. In cases where an individual commits atrocities (and they do occur in every conflict), it is a measure of our civilized nature that military officials investigate and prosecute anyone who is accused of violating the laws of land warfare. For the most part, the community of nations has endeavored to observe appropriate behavior in wartime since 1954. That is . . . until now.
America and its coalition partners are once again at war. This time, war is based on an ideological conflict, rather than political. Instead of concentrating our efforts on the destruction of a government or its infrastructure, we stand in opposition to individuals and small groups who adhere to the barbaric standards of the 7th Century. This is a challenge to civilized countries because individual Muslims have not adopted the Geneva Convention, nor do they subscribe to higher standards of conduct on the battlefield – except when they are soliciting sympathy from a liberal press. In this conflict, there is no battlefield in the traditional sense because insurgencies are not bound to conventional strategies and tactics.
We are not fighting a state, so we cannot refer to the enemy as Saudis, even though Saudis undoubtedly participate in the insurgency, so we refer to these people in several ways: insurgent, Jihadist, terrorist, radical, and extremist. To many, such references are confusing – but there are important distinctions. Insurgent and terrorist refers to they strategy and tactics they employ, while the term Jihadist describes a motivation for fighting (prosecution of a holy war). The words radical, or extremist, suggests an unconventional adherence to a belief system. So the difficulty for first world nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States, is confronting a largely disorganized collection of individual ideologues; it is not unlike a large dog scratching at fleas.
The “battlefield behavior” of Islamacists could not be further from the ethical standards associated with classic warfare. Rather than trying to minimize collateral damage, they seek to kill or maim as many innocents as possible, and it does not matter whether the killed or injured are women, children, elderly, or the helpless. Rather than caring for prisoners of war or comforting them – those who fall into the hands of radical Muslims are beheaded, their bodies mutilated, and tossed like so much garbage along the side of the road. If Clausewitz was correct by asserting that the conduct of war reflects the social mores of the combatants – then we must conclude that if Muslim Jihadists are following the dictates of religious principles, then that dogma lacks even a modicum of decency and morality. It is, as I have already suggested, uncivilized.
Of course, western societies have known about Muslim behavior for many years, and it makes no difference whether a Muslim is a Sunni, or Shi’ite – because their behaviors are consistent. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, did not hesitate to use lethal gas in his eight-year war with Iran, nor did he hesitate to use it against the Kurds in Northern Iraq – all of whom were fellow Muslims. Shi’ite Muslims did not allow morality to interfere with their destruction of non-combatants in two of our embassies and the World Trade Center.
After more than three years, the war on terror continues. Just two days ago, the al-Qaeda hierarchy announced its intent to expand terrorism; they will continue to plan spectacular attacks, but urge members not to overlook soft targets in local communities. The reason for this is simple: a hand-grenade attack at a shopping mall in Kansas would be every bit as disruptive to our society and its economy as any extravagant target. The purpose of terrorist insurgency is to intimidate citizens to the point of changing their normal behavior – and any change in behavior is a Jihadi success. It is not a coincidence that terrorists explode car bombs near market places, where they know people must purchase their food. Such behaviors reflect Islamic mores, and it does reveal to us all that we need to know about our enemy. Jihadists are not chivalrous, they are not brave, and they are not humane. Terrorists, along with those who encourage them, fund them, and lead them from afar, are sinister cutthroats in pursuit of a fairy tale involving world conquest and Islamic domination. Islamacists’ goals are to cause as much pain and suffering as possible; they are not looking for solutions to problems in the Middle East; they are destroyers, not builders.
In prosecuting the war, we must recognize that while Islamic insurgents are despicable, according to every civilized convention, they are hardly stupid; while civilized people may deplore the manner in which Jihadists prosecute warfare, we must also acknowledge that they have met with some successes. Terrorists did convince the people of Spain to abandon their policy opposing terrorism. Muslim political and religious leaders have convinced heads of state that radicalism does not represent Islam – and while I have not personally observed this, they insist that Islam is a religion of peace. Additionally, radical Muslims have infiltrated western societies over many years. They have garnered financial benefactors, gained political influence, and learned how to manipulate secular law to their own advantage. Muslim organizations, many that are accused of sponsoring terrorism, have convinced public school teachers to present Islam in classrooms, disguised as a cultural study. Apparently, no one was paying much attention when Salafists erected a series of radical mosques and madrassahs throughout Western Europe, and from coast-to-coast in the United States.
Nevertheless, one must acknowledge that in spite of the fact Muslim extremists behave barbarically – they are a force that we must deal with. But we have a problem. First, the so-called anti-terror coalition has failed to promulgate any cogent national objectives; seeking out and destroying terrorists wherever they exist lacks specificity. In other words, there is no rallying point for American or British citizens. Granted, there are some vague notions among Americans about what this war entails, but I think most people are confused. For example, I have heard Americans proclaim their support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also say they do not support the war against radical Islam. Such statements are utter nonsense. It is impossible to support our soldiers, when in fact you do not support what they are doing.
The lack of coherent national objectives produces dire consequences within an informed society. In spite of the mountains of evidence that Jihadists do present a clear and present danger, there remain tens of thousands of western apologists for terrorist behavior and strategies. Some people have said that they understand why Islamacists act the way they do; America and the United Kingdom is getting what they deserve. Moderate Muslims, if there is such a thing, refuse to condemn cruel behaviors, and western leaders demand their governments demonstrate sensitivity to the feelings of Muslim communities. In my view, these conditions present an ideal environment for a revival of domestic attacks; our leaders have not only failed to convince the national constituency, they are actually encouraging extremists to renew their commitment to insurgency, whether in Iraq or in the rural hills of Virginia.
Our head of state has done a miserable job communicating the milestones needed to achieve his undefined national strategy – one of the most important principles of war. Then, while publicly denouncing Islamic extremism, he stubbornly insists that Islam is a religion of peace – which, considering the number of hate-preaching madrassahs in the United States is a gigantic leap in logic. But Mr. Bush is not alone because Jihadism does not confine itself to the United States. It does not take an advanced degree to understand that the extremism demonstrated in France, Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain is part of a global strategy. Frankly, no one should be surprised to learn that medical doctors are part of the plot to disrupt western civil society through terrorist behavior. What should we expect from people who wrap their infants in explosive vests?
Among the most important principles of war is this: war should be avoided at all costs, but when it has been thrust upon a freedom loving society, it must be prosecuted with vigorous resolve, and it must be concluded successfully. George Bush, by failing to rally the American people to a coherent national objective, has sent our troops into harms way without the warm wrapping of our citizens’ unqualified support. As a consequence to his ineptitude, Mr. Bush and our troops now suffer the slings and arrows of a grossly uninformed partisan political body, America is again divided, and cutthroat Jihadists gain significant psychological advantages in the recruitment of even more potential homicide bombers. In refusing to implement sound principles of war, and lacking an adequate understanding of the opposing culture, Mr. Bush places Americans in greater danger because unlike Mr. Bush, terrorists know exactly what they want to achieve, and exactly how to achieve it.
Following World War II, nations recognized the need to develop standards for regulating the conduct of combatants, holding them to higher standards of behavior. The laws of land warfare are embodied in what we refer to as the Geneva Convention, which was actually a series of meetings committed to limiting the horror of war to combatants themselves – as much as it is possible to do so. The essential elements of the Law of Land Warfare are to (1) protect combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering, (2) safeguard fundamental human rights of those who fall into the hands of belligerents, including prisoners of war, the wounded, the sick, and civilians, and (3) to facilitate the restoration of peaceful coexistence.
General Clausewitz also argued that in the conduct of war, military strategies must reflect the nation’s political objectives because without an understanding of what the national leadership expects to achieve from war, it is impossible to devise effective strategies to accomplish them. Clausewitz also suggested that the social implications of warfare are every bit as important as battlefield tactics, because without the full support of the nation, it is impossible to realize military objectives. In order to gain and retain the support of a nation’s citizens, it is necessary that a country’s military will conduct itself in a manner that does not offend social sensibilities.
Today, civilized nations demand that their warriors observe certain (chivalrous) ethical standards. Limiting collateral damage in a combat area is one example of protecting non-combatants from unnecessary suffering, a factor that led to the development of high-tech ordnance and so-called “surgical strikes” on targets located in highly populated areas. Civilized societies demand the protection of the innocent insofar as it is possible, and they expect humane treatment of POWs. Today, we expect our soldiers to accept an enemy’s surrender without malice, to protect them from harm, treat their wounds and illnesses, and treat them respectfully. In cases where an individual commits atrocities (and they do occur in every conflict), it is a measure of our civilized nature that military officials investigate and prosecute anyone who is accused of violating the laws of land warfare. For the most part, the community of nations has endeavored to observe appropriate behavior in wartime since 1954. That is . . . until now.
America and its coalition partners are once again at war. This time, war is based on an ideological conflict, rather than political. Instead of concentrating our efforts on the destruction of a government or its infrastructure, we stand in opposition to individuals and small groups who adhere to the barbaric standards of the 7th Century. This is a challenge to civilized countries because individual Muslims have not adopted the Geneva Convention, nor do they subscribe to higher standards of conduct on the battlefield – except when they are soliciting sympathy from a liberal press. In this conflict, there is no battlefield in the traditional sense because insurgencies are not bound to conventional strategies and tactics.
We are not fighting a state, so we cannot refer to the enemy as Saudis, even though Saudis undoubtedly participate in the insurgency, so we refer to these people in several ways: insurgent, Jihadist, terrorist, radical, and extremist. To many, such references are confusing – but there are important distinctions. Insurgent and terrorist refers to they strategy and tactics they employ, while the term Jihadist describes a motivation for fighting (prosecution of a holy war). The words radical, or extremist, suggests an unconventional adherence to a belief system. So the difficulty for first world nations such as the United Kingdom and the United States, is confronting a largely disorganized collection of individual ideologues; it is not unlike a large dog scratching at fleas.
The “battlefield behavior” of Islamacists could not be further from the ethical standards associated with classic warfare. Rather than trying to minimize collateral damage, they seek to kill or maim as many innocents as possible, and it does not matter whether the killed or injured are women, children, elderly, or the helpless. Rather than caring for prisoners of war or comforting them – those who fall into the hands of radical Muslims are beheaded, their bodies mutilated, and tossed like so much garbage along the side of the road. If Clausewitz was correct by asserting that the conduct of war reflects the social mores of the combatants – then we must conclude that if Muslim Jihadists are following the dictates of religious principles, then that dogma lacks even a modicum of decency and morality. It is, as I have already suggested, uncivilized.
Of course, western societies have known about Muslim behavior for many years, and it makes no difference whether a Muslim is a Sunni, or Shi’ite – because their behaviors are consistent. Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, did not hesitate to use lethal gas in his eight-year war with Iran, nor did he hesitate to use it against the Kurds in Northern Iraq – all of whom were fellow Muslims. Shi’ite Muslims did not allow morality to interfere with their destruction of non-combatants in two of our embassies and the World Trade Center.
After more than three years, the war on terror continues. Just two days ago, the al-Qaeda hierarchy announced its intent to expand terrorism; they will continue to plan spectacular attacks, but urge members not to overlook soft targets in local communities. The reason for this is simple: a hand-grenade attack at a shopping mall in Kansas would be every bit as disruptive to our society and its economy as any extravagant target. The purpose of terrorist insurgency is to intimidate citizens to the point of changing their normal behavior – and any change in behavior is a Jihadi success. It is not a coincidence that terrorists explode car bombs near market places, where they know people must purchase their food. Such behaviors reflect Islamic mores, and it does reveal to us all that we need to know about our enemy. Jihadists are not chivalrous, they are not brave, and they are not humane. Terrorists, along with those who encourage them, fund them, and lead them from afar, are sinister cutthroats in pursuit of a fairy tale involving world conquest and Islamic domination. Islamacists’ goals are to cause as much pain and suffering as possible; they are not looking for solutions to problems in the Middle East; they are destroyers, not builders.
In prosecuting the war, we must recognize that while Islamic insurgents are despicable, according to every civilized convention, they are hardly stupid; while civilized people may deplore the manner in which Jihadists prosecute warfare, we must also acknowledge that they have met with some successes. Terrorists did convince the people of Spain to abandon their policy opposing terrorism. Muslim political and religious leaders have convinced heads of state that radicalism does not represent Islam – and while I have not personally observed this, they insist that Islam is a religion of peace. Additionally, radical Muslims have infiltrated western societies over many years. They have garnered financial benefactors, gained political influence, and learned how to manipulate secular law to their own advantage. Muslim organizations, many that are accused of sponsoring terrorism, have convinced public school teachers to present Islam in classrooms, disguised as a cultural study. Apparently, no one was paying much attention when Salafists erected a series of radical mosques and madrassahs throughout Western Europe, and from coast-to-coast in the United States.
Nevertheless, one must acknowledge that in spite of the fact Muslim extremists behave barbarically – they are a force that we must deal with. But we have a problem. First, the so-called anti-terror coalition has failed to promulgate any cogent national objectives; seeking out and destroying terrorists wherever they exist lacks specificity. In other words, there is no rallying point for American or British citizens. Granted, there are some vague notions among Americans about what this war entails, but I think most people are confused. For example, I have heard Americans proclaim their support the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also say they do not support the war against radical Islam. Such statements are utter nonsense. It is impossible to support our soldiers, when in fact you do not support what they are doing.
The lack of coherent national objectives produces dire consequences within an informed society. In spite of the mountains of evidence that Jihadists do present a clear and present danger, there remain tens of thousands of western apologists for terrorist behavior and strategies. Some people have said that they understand why Islamacists act the way they do; America and the United Kingdom is getting what they deserve. Moderate Muslims, if there is such a thing, refuse to condemn cruel behaviors, and western leaders demand their governments demonstrate sensitivity to the feelings of Muslim communities. In my view, these conditions present an ideal environment for a revival of domestic attacks; our leaders have not only failed to convince the national constituency, they are actually encouraging extremists to renew their commitment to insurgency, whether in Iraq or in the rural hills of Virginia.
Our head of state has done a miserable job communicating the milestones needed to achieve his undefined national strategy – one of the most important principles of war. Then, while publicly denouncing Islamic extremism, he stubbornly insists that Islam is a religion of peace – which, considering the number of hate-preaching madrassahs in the United States is a gigantic leap in logic. But Mr. Bush is not alone because Jihadism does not confine itself to the United States. It does not take an advanced degree to understand that the extremism demonstrated in France, Denmark, Germany, and Great Britain is part of a global strategy. Frankly, no one should be surprised to learn that medical doctors are part of the plot to disrupt western civil society through terrorist behavior. What should we expect from people who wrap their infants in explosive vests?
Among the most important principles of war is this: war should be avoided at all costs, but when it has been thrust upon a freedom loving society, it must be prosecuted with vigorous resolve, and it must be concluded successfully. George Bush, by failing to rally the American people to a coherent national objective, has sent our troops into harms way without the warm wrapping of our citizens’ unqualified support. As a consequence to his ineptitude, Mr. Bush and our troops now suffer the slings and arrows of a grossly uninformed partisan political body, America is again divided, and cutthroat Jihadists gain significant psychological advantages in the recruitment of even more potential homicide bombers. In refusing to implement sound principles of war, and lacking an adequate understanding of the opposing culture, Mr. Bush places Americans in greater danger because unlike Mr. Bush, terrorists know exactly what they want to achieve, and exactly how to achieve it.
|