The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 4 of 16)

/p> p> NARROW DEFINITIONS br> Re: George H. Wittman's We Can Do It : /p>

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."

p>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. br> -- R. L. Markley

topics:
Taxes, Education, Trade, Health Care, Business, Religion, Islam, Environment, Global Warming, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Founding Fathers, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Immigration, Energy, Unions, Medicare