Are we at "war"?

[kentuck]

Please give it serious thought. Who are we at war with? Just because they are "war" with us automatically makes us at war with them? Are they a serious threat to our country? Can they do anything now they couldn't have done in the last 25 years? What has changed?

There is no denying that we lost 9 troops thus far today in Afghanistan. We have lost over 4000 troops altogether. We lost all our troops on their lands - none on our own. However, no one can forget that we lost 3000 people on 9/11 to 19 terrorists with primitive weapons and a desire to kill Americans. Doesn't that make us at "war"?

What country are we fighting? Afghanistan is now our friend and ally. So is Iraq. It is true that 15 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 were from the country of Saudi Arabia. Are we at war with Saudi Arabia?

Isn't "war" defined as hostilities between two nations or more? Is "war" the correct term? Isn't there something more correct that it could be called? "Police action against radical terrorists?" Would that be more accurate? Why do you think we are at "war"?

[JeffR]

1. We invaded & occupied two countries in violation of international law.

These aren't wars. They're not even police actions. They're criminal enterprises carried out in our names.

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

2. Some non thinking people are " at fear ".

[kentuck]

7. We are "at fear" more than we are "at war" ?

Good one!

[mudesi]

3. Except for Pearl Harbor, America has never experienced war

Not really. And no, 9/11 and the civil war don't count.

[Kolesar]

5. In 1814, we took a little trip

Along with General Jackson along the mighty Mississip'
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we beat the bloody British at the Battle of New Orleans

[readmoreoften]

4. "At mass murder with"

[Journeyman]

6. You'd do well to read Martin van Creveld and his theories on 4th Generation Warfare. . .

especially his work on The Transformation of War and The Rise and Decline of the State, to better understand the situation we are in and the intractable nature of waging a traditional warfare against non-state combatants.

A synopsis of The Transformation of War can be found here: http://www.d-n-i.net/creveld/through_a_glass_darkly.htm

while a short overview of The Rise and Decline of the State can be found here: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96spring/creveld.htm

A comprehensive overview of Professor Creveld work and links to many of his published works online can be found at The Essential 4GW Reading List: Martin Van Creveld: http://fabiusmaximus.wordpress.com/2007/11/12/the-essential-4gw-reading-list-chapter-one-martin-van-creveld/

A brief overview of his life and work can be found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_van_Creveld

[kentuck]

8. He says:

"...if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot."

also:

In 2005, van Creveld made headlines when he said in an interview that the 2003 Invasion of Iraq was "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and lost them", a reference to the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, (which actually took place in AD 9). His analysis included harsh criticism of the Bush Administration, comparing the war to the Vietnam war. Moreover, he said that "Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial." <8>


In 2007, van Creveld commented that

Iran is the real victor in Iraq, and the world must now learn to live with a nuclear Iran the way we learned to live with a nuclear Soviet Union and a nuclear China.... We Israelis have what it takes to deter an Iranian attack. We are in no danger at all of having an Iranian nuclear weapon dropped on us.... thanks to the Iranian threat, we are getting weapons from the U.S. and Germany.<9>
===========================

It seems to me that if we are fighting a weaker enemy that we know is weaker than ourselves, it would be wiser to recruit an army of mercenaries from similar backgrounds as the enemy and only play a third Party role of supplying those troops, rather than to engage American troops in such a conflict. That is basically what we did in El Salvador and Nicaragua, in my opinion. However, before we indulge ourselves in these new "types" of warfare, it should be approved by the US Congress as a worthwhile and defensible position.

[Poiuyt]

9. What about if a leader starts a war specifically so he can say "We are at war!"

This, I believe, was Bush's primary reason for starting the Iraq war. He wanted to be a "war president" to help him push his warped agenda through Congress and the American people. He had seen how popular his father was when he (his father) had invaded Iraq, so he wanted to do the same. Bush had also said before he came into office that, to be considered great, a president needs to preside over some great conflict.