Question of scale
Joshua Dratel writes, of terrorism: "...we managed to eradicate nazism as a significant threat without wholesale repudiation of the laws of war, or a categorical departure from international norms...we can dispatch it [terrorism] to the same historical dustbin without, in the process, forsaking all of the precepts we hold dear, and upon we distinguish ourselves from the enemies" (p.114)
For the first time this semester, I think I have found something I can sink my teeth into. Mr. Dratel speaks of nazism and terrorism in the same breath, without presenting the true scales of war let alone the changes of war that have occurred. First, he attempts to apply codified law of war in a situation where none exists. The german and american armies did follow the laws of war, whereas terrorism knows no such law. Terrorism is not a war of soldiers, it is a war of agents, subversives whose aim is to not conquer a nation by sheer numbers, but by subversion, chaos, and fear. Nazism was a war of chaos, certainly, but it was an organized and methodical system of a visible and viable military structure. To say that a military, let alone a thousands year old "code of war" should and CAN apply here is rubbish. These terrorists are so decentralized and so far from standard soldiers, old methods are just not practical or applicable.
Next, Mr. Dratel forgets to notice that our enemies are flat out not just terrorizing captives, but are killing them for propaganda purposes. One needs to look no further than Al-Jazeera to see tapes of soldiers, reporters, etc. being killed. The last time I checked, even in situations that the United States have violated torture procedures, there were no deaths. The international norms that Mr. Dratel describes have grown out of the cold war ideologies, and need to be updated since we are past the cold-war appeasement and containment ideas. We are dealing with a shadow organization that does not respect what the U.N, E.U, NATO, or whatever other organization says. We gain nothing by following Mr. Dratels Euro-style model, as Europe is 1) Not involved in an active conflict, and 2) Still following a cold war policy of political and military pacifism. Should we be? Thats certainly open for debate, and I welcome that debate. However, ours is not the above listed question.
We are in a situation that cannot now be avoided, and Mr. Dratels solution is not a viable one. A solution needs to be found to address 21st century intelligence and warfare, one that does follow rule of law, but our own. We need to lead by example, the right example. And we need to show the world once again that we can lead with our example, as opposed to following an outmoded thought process of the releasing of doves and the shaking of hands, as our enemy now kills the doves and cuts off the hands of diplomacy. How to accomplish this? Certainly by not being followers, but leaders where we prove that bi-partisan thinking and thought can prevail to curtail abuses while still making headway towards the goal: making the world safe, not just for democracy, but for respect for law and man
For the first time this semester, I think I have found something I can sink my teeth into. Mr. Dratel speaks of nazism and terrorism in the same breath, without presenting the true scales of war let alone the changes of war that have occurred. First, he attempts to apply codified law of war in a situation where none exists. The german and american armies did follow the laws of war, whereas terrorism knows no such law. Terrorism is not a war of soldiers, it is a war of agents, subversives whose aim is to not conquer a nation by sheer numbers, but by subversion, chaos, and fear. Nazism was a war of chaos, certainly, but it was an organized and methodical system of a visible and viable military structure. To say that a military, let alone a thousands year old "code of war" should and CAN apply here is rubbish. These terrorists are so decentralized and so far from standard soldiers, old methods are just not practical or applicable.
Next, Mr. Dratel forgets to notice that our enemies are flat out not just terrorizing captives, but are killing them for propaganda purposes. One needs to look no further than Al-Jazeera to see tapes of soldiers, reporters, etc. being killed. The last time I checked, even in situations that the United States have violated torture procedures, there were no deaths. The international norms that Mr. Dratel describes have grown out of the cold war ideologies, and need to be updated since we are past the cold-war appeasement and containment ideas. We are dealing with a shadow organization that does not respect what the U.N, E.U, NATO, or whatever other organization says. We gain nothing by following Mr. Dratels Euro-style model, as Europe is 1) Not involved in an active conflict, and 2) Still following a cold war policy of political and military pacifism. Should we be? Thats certainly open for debate, and I welcome that debate. However, ours is not the above listed question.
We are in a situation that cannot now be avoided, and Mr. Dratels solution is not a viable one. A solution needs to be found to address 21st century intelligence and warfare, one that does follow rule of law, but our own. We need to lead by example, the right example. And we need to show the world once again that we can lead with our example, as opposed to following an outmoded thought process of the releasing of doves and the shaking of hands, as our enemy now kills the doves and cuts off the hands of diplomacy. How to accomplish this? Certainly by not being followers, but leaders where we prove that bi-partisan thinking and thought can prevail to curtail abuses while still making headway towards the goal: making the world safe, not just for democracy, but for respect for law and man
posted by Ian S. Crawford at 20:06
1 Comments:
Ian,
You're right that Dratel's comparison between WWII and fighting terror is overdrawn to say the least. (Although according to several authors detainees have been killed in Guantanamo -- some say 20 or 30). It's not clear to me what your solution is, though. Perhaps we can't approach al Qaeda like a foreign army, but should we throw all restraints or rules to the wind? (I know you're not saying we should)
2
Ierakstīt komentāru
<< Home