(Page 2 of 6)
This lawsuit is only the beginning. Because of growing
acceptance of the moral relativism rife within our society, these
cultural battles will continue to tear away at the fabric of our
society. Absent any consistent standard by which to judge
appropriate behavior or define relationships, the side wielding the
biggest club will always be declared the de facto winner. Those
seeking to redefine the norm need only curry the favor of a simple
majority of bureaucrats or jurists in a given locale in order to
prescribe radical changes in their communities. On the federal
level, political parties with a bare plurality can impose their
will on the rest of the citizenry, at least until the next
election. Our ultimate destination appears to be headed toward a
validation of the principle that might always makes right. This
drift away from a uniform moral consensus portends more chaos in
the future as more and more factions appear, each seeking to wrest
an increasingly elusive concept of moral authority away from any
they label as enemies of their freedom.
-- Rick Arand
Lee's Summit, Missouri
NARROW DEFINITIONS
Re: George H. Wittman's We Can Do
It:
The article by George Wittman "We Can Do It" may contain a good idea for how to better fight "terrorists" in Iraq (and elsewhere) but Mr. Wittman has a flawed definition of "terrorism" that taints his article. ("'Terrorism' is the intentional use of violence against unarmed, innocent civilians.") That is a good, generally accepted definition of the word. All forms of unconventional warfare are not "terrorism." Thus Mr. Wittman qualifying as "terrorism" the acts of the American Revolutionary Army against British soldiers during the Revolutionary War is a false use of the term. Soldiers killing other soldiers, even when shooting from behind a wall, is not "terrorism" by any accepted definition. The other examples of "American Terrorism" that Mr. Wittman uses are in the same vein: each case of so called U.S. "terrorism" cited by Mr. Wittman was an example of legitimate use of force against enemy soldiers, such as during the Civil War or during WWII.
One example of potential "terrorism" used by the U.S. and her allies during wartime was not cited by Mr. Wittman: namely, the intentional bombing of civilian areas during WWII, such as the firebombing of Tokyo or German cities. The examples that Mr. Wittman chose were incorrect.
Even in Iraq those persons who plant roadside bombs to kill U.S. soldiers cannot be termed "terrorists." Killing enemy soldiers is a legitimate act during wartime, even if the act is unconventional. War is about killing the enemy, so even though I don't like enemy combatants killing fellow U.S. soldiers in this (or any) manner, it is not "terrorism." Those persons who intentionally blow up markets, hospitals, etc. intending to kill civilians, are "terrorists" in every sense of the word. When the U.S. drops a bomb on a house that is believed to contain enemy fighters, and accidentally kill some civilians, this is not "terrorism" either, because the intent was to kill the enemy combatants, not to kill civilians. Wanton disregard for civilian life during wartime may constitute "war crimes" but even that could not be considered "terrorism" if the primary intent was to kill enemy soldiers.
Mr. Wittman's suggestion that the U.S. take a more aggressive stance and kill civilian leaders who may be aiding the enemy might be a good idea, and is likely legal under the rules of war. If a civilian aids the enemy he becomes a combatant, even if he is in civilian clothes, and so a legitimate target in wartime. Thus taking action against such a person could not be classified as "terrorism."
The article has some good ideas, but unfortunately misuses the much misused word "terrorism."
I can tell Mr. Wittman and your readers how we can win in Iraq,
however, and I can do it in one sentence: To win in Iraq the U.S.
does not need to become "terroristic" as Mr. Witt suggests, the
U.S. simply needs to end aid for the enemy which is coming from
Iran and Syria. No tactics, no matter how clever, will ever work so
long as Iran and Syria are free to aid, arm, train, finance and
infiltrate enemy fighters into Iraq.
-- R. L. Markley
France
OK, people, show of hands...
How many of you, when the liberal-left MSM news is showing footage of terrorists walking, no, strutting around the streets of Baghdad, AK-47s at the ready, RPG launchers balanced on their shoulders, hurling Arabic insults at America the Great Satan, for the willing cameras of AP and Reuters... how many of you have ever dreamed of having US Special Forces teams lurking in the area who would zero in on them and drop those Islamofascists dead in their tracks, right in front of the cameras? Show of hands...how many of you wish you could see this happen?
Mr. Wittman, I submit to you that the American people are long
since mad enough. Adopt those unconventional counter-terrorism
methods already and beat the terrorists at their own game. Whatever
it takes to defeat them. Whatever it takes to win.
-- Bruce Clark
Cisco, Texas
Our rules of engagement in Iraq are and will be the reason for our eventual defeat there -- Mr. Wittman is correct. I am reminded of an incident during WWII in Ammerschwier, Alsace. The mayor walked out on the main street to meet the advancing Americans with a white flag, declaring that the city is surrendering and that there are no enemy forces left in the town. The American officer then walked in front of a tank and entered the town. A hidden sniper killed the officer. The American troops retreated and called for bombers, which then blasted that medieval town to dust. Now that sure stopped any hidden snipers in their activities -- the Germans learned from that incident and such incidents were not repeated.
The Iraqi civilians are witnesses of terrorist activities --
while they prepare ambushes and mount their improvised explosive
devices in the roads. They should be made aware that their silence
is tantamount to collaboration to be followed by extensive
bombardment of the entire neighborhood. After a few such
demonstrations these "civilians" would find it profitable to report
the presence of terrorists to the American and Iraqi troops and so
avoid their own annihilation.
-- Marc Jeric
Las Vegas, Nevada
Regarding George H. Wittman's article "We Can Do It," he is right
of course. Having enjoyed his articles on a regular basis, I get
the feeling that he calls upon a wealth of experience in order to
be so insightful in his writing. We are currently on the proverbial
treadmill in Iraq and conventional warfare against fanatical
terrorists will never succeed. Wittman demonstrates that there are
ways for our military to exit. Perhaps it's time our leaders
listened.
-- Don Winer
Stuart, Florida
DAZED AND AMAZED
Re: Ben Stein's Bush
Amazes: