Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Talroth A war of terror is born (most often) from oppressive balance of power conditions, when the aggressor can not afford to field armies of conventional soldiers to move on and take ground and defeat an opposing standing army. Their main weapon can't be a common foot soldier, and they have little chance of defeating a standing army. What does this leave them as options? They must then either attack different targets, or attack in a different way. What other ways are these? And what other targets? Strategic ambushes, hit and run, taking out command and control from an opposing army. Other targets? Supply, economic, and civilian. Oppressive balance of power conditions? What's that supposed to mean? Terrorism - bascially what you're trying to describe here - is predominantly a tactic used by poor people in occupied lands in order to expel armies of occupation. More often than not it's used in response to aggression not in furtherance of it.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Talroth A war of terror is born (most often) from oppressive balance of power conditions, when the aggressor can not afford to field armies of conventional soldiers to move on and take ground and defeat an opposing standing army. Their main weapon can't be a common foot soldier, and they have little chance of defeating a standing army. What does this leave them as options? They must then either attack different targets, or attack in a different way. What other ways are these? And what other targets? Strategic ambushes, hit and run, taking out command and control from an opposing army. Other targets? Supply, economic, and civilian. Oppressive balance of power conditions? What's that supposed to mean? Terrorism - bascially what you're trying to describe here - is predominantly a tactic used by poor people in occupied lands in order to expel armies of occupation. More often than not it's used in response to aggression not in furtherance of it.

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Talroth A war of terror is born (most often) from oppressive balance of power conditions, when the aggressor can not afford to field armies of conventional soldiers to move on and take ground and defeat an opposing standing army. Their main weapon can't be a common foot soldier, and they have little chance of defeating a standing army. What does this leave them as options? They must then either attack different targets, or attack in a different way. What other ways are these? And what other targets? Strategic ambushes, hit and run, taking out command and control from an opposing army. Other targets? Supply, economic, and civilian. Oppressive balance of power conditions? What's that supposed to mean? Terrorism - bascially what you're trying to describe here - is predominantly a tactic used by poor people in occupied lands in order to expel armies of occupation. More often than not it's used in response to aggression not in furtherance of it.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread I don't buy that either. The challenge posed by terrorism is signficant, but that doesn't equate with calling it a war. The second phrase is a possibly valid answer to my question - the first ambiguous as to whether you don't buy it as a justification for calling the GWOT a war or whether you don't buy my categorisation: it's a war if the enemy is stronger than a certain unnamed treshold. The "war is fought against nations" argument becomes obsolete if the tradition that nations or countries or governments wield the highest force in the field is broken.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor And broken it looks to me, as a non-entity like Hizballah holds ground against a top modern army for a month and is stronger and better funded than many a state army, as terrorists wield more influence than the government in areas bigger than many a country (Pashtu Afghanistan, Waziristan, Somalia until Etiopia swept through).

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Of course, you're also right in that whatever extant legal definition of war does not altogether describe this conflict, but neither is extant legally defined police action going to stop organizations fielding tens of thousand of assault rifles and anti-tank missiles.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: If we let them define the conflict as war, then we've already lost. If we say it's a war, then they become freedom fighters rather than criminals. If we say it's a war, then out come the heavy weapons of state terrorism that are sure to drive the fence sitters into the arms of those new freedom fighters. Freedom fighters? Mujahids more likely. Of course, whether we say it's a war or not isn't going to be decided by debate but by irrational impulse. Hopefully there won't be further terror attacks so your position will prevail.

Quote:

China has secretly fired powerful laser weapons designed to disable American spy satellites by "blinding" their sensitive surveillance devices, it was reported yesterday. The hitherto unreported attacks have been kept secret by the Bush administration for fear that it would damage attempts to co-opt China in diplomatic offensives against North Korea and Iran. Sources told the military affairs publication Defense News that there had been a fierce internal battle within Washington over whether to make the attacks public. In the end, the Pentagon's annual assessment of the growing Chinese military build-up barely mentioned the threat. "After a contentious debate, the White House directed the Pentagon to limit its concern to one line," Defense News said. The document said that China could blind American satellites with a ground-based laser firing a beam of light to prevent spy photography as they pass over China. According to senior American officials: "China not only has the capability, but has exercised it." American satellites like the giant Keyhole craft have come under attack "several times" in recent years. ...

Quote:

Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread I don't buy that either. The challenge posed by terrorism is signficant, but that doesn't equate with calling it a war. The second phrase is a possibly valid answer to my question - the first ambiguous as to whether you don't buy it as a justification for calling the GWOT a war or whether you don't buy my categorisation: it's a war if the enemy is stronger than a certain unnamed treshold. The "war is fought against nations" argument becomes obsolete if the tradition that nations or countries or governments wield the highest force in the field is broken. The argument wasn't the war is something fought against nations, but between nations.

Quote:

The distinction is important. I'm not aware of any conflict where a nation/government didn't weild the most powerful weapons on the field.

Quote:

I don't buy that it's a war if the terrorists say it's a war.

Quote:

How could terrorists pose a challenge more greater or significant than those posed by nations?

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Diodor And broken it looks to me, as a non-entity like Hizballah holds ground against a top modern army for a month and is stronger and better funded than many a state army, as terrorists wield more influence than the government in areas bigger than many a country (Pashtu Afghanistan, Waziristan, Somalia until Etiopia swept through). I wouldn't describe Hezbollah as a non-entity.

Quote:

I'm skeptical of the assertion that Hezbollah is better funded than many state armies.

Quote:

I don't think it's accurate to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.

Quote:

I agree that Hezbollah's prestige has increased due to how well it held against Israel last summer, but I don't know if that translates into influence much less why it matters in this case.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by Diodor Of course, you're also right in that whatever extant legal definition of war does not altogether describe this conflict, but neither is extant legally defined police action going to stop organizations fielding tens of thousand of assault rifles and anti-tank missiles. Hezbollah is not a problem of the United States.

Quote:

If you don't want to contend with tens of thousand of assault rifles and anti-tank missiles wielded by Hezbollah, then don't invade or molest Lebanon. It's really that simple.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: If we let them define the conflict as war, then we've already lost. If we say it's a war, then they become freedom fighters rather than criminals. If we say it's a war, then out come the heavy weapons of state terrorism that are sure to drive the fence sitters into the arms of those new freedom fighters. Freedom fighters? Mujahids more likely. Of course, whether we say it's a war or not isn't going to be decided by debate but by irrational impulse. Hopefully there won't be further terror attacks so your position will prevail.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by LessBread Quote: Original post by Diodor Quote: Original post by Lessbread I don't buy that either. The challenge posed by terrorism is signficant, but that doesn't equate with calling it a war. The second phrase is a possibly valid answer to my question - the first ambiguous as to whether you don't buy it as a justification for calling the GWOT a war or whether you don't buy my categorisation: it's a war if the enemy is stronger than a certain unnamed treshold. The "war is fought against nations" argument becomes obsolete if the tradition that nations or countries or governments wield the highest force in the field is broken. The argument wasn't the war is something fought against nations, but between nations. They are equivalent if the side doing the fighting is assumed to be a nation (the US usually). A conflict against something as strong or as lethal as a nation is a war.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: The distinction is important. I'm not aware of any conflict where a nation/government didn't weild the most powerful weapons on the field. Yes but strength is about more than powerful weapons, particularly when one takes a longer view towards the future.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: I don't buy that it's a war if the terrorists say it's a war. Agreed.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: How could terrorists pose a challenge more greater or significant than those posed by nations? Because they cannot be deterred and don't think altogether straight. If they can mobilize fence sitters (some of which may wield influence with governments). You offered a "we already lost" scenario a few posts ago.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Quote: Original post by Diodor And broken it looks to me, as a non-entity like Hizballah holds ground against a top modern army for a month and is stronger and better funded than many a state army, as terrorists wield more influence than the government in areas bigger than many a country (Pashtu Afghanistan, Waziristan, Somalia until Etiopia swept through). I wouldn't describe Hezbollah as a non-entity. Well, they aren't a national army, they don't take orders from their own government. What are they?

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: I'm skeptical of the assertion that Hezbollah is better funded than many state armies. I'm sure of it, though I concede one has to go ridiculously low towards the bottom of the list to find them. One or two dozen countries have lower populations than Hezbollah has soldiers. :-)

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: I don't think it's accurate to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. The Dutch disagree.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: I agree that Hezbollah's prestige has increased due to how well it held against Israel last summer, but I don't know if that translates into influence much less why it matters in this case. That part of my post referred to the examples in the parenthesis. What do you make of Waziristan for instance? They harbor terrorists and are under the jurisdiction of a government that cannot (and would not) either control the area or abandon it. According to the Bush doctrine an ultimatum is in order, but of course things are more complicated than that.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Quote: Original post by Diodor Of course, you're also right in that whatever extant legal definition of war does not altogether describe this conflict, but neither is extant legally defined police action going to stop organizations fielding tens of thousand of assault rifles and anti-tank missiles. Hezbollah is not a problem of the United States. I didn't imply that it was. They do challenge established categories.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: If you don't want to contend with tens of thousand of assault rifles and anti-tank missiles wielded by Hezbollah, then don't invade or molest Lebanon. It's really that simple. There are assault rifles in Afghanistan - how can police get Bin Laden out of there without a war? There are RPGs in Waziristan and Somalia. And there are the armies of fearful governments willing to appease their restive radical minority.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Quote: Original post by Diodor Quote: If we let them define the conflict as war, then we've already lost. If we say it's a war, then they become freedom fighters rather than criminals. If we say it's a war, then out come the heavy weapons of state terrorism that are sure to drive the fence sitters into the arms of those new freedom fighters. Freedom fighters? Mujahids more likely. Of course, whether we say it's a war or not isn't going to be decided by debate but by irrational impulse. Hopefully there won't be further terror attacks so your position will prevail. When it came to fighting the USSR, freedom fighter and mujahid were synonymous. They still are. The mujahid is fighting for what he believes is religious freedom. We don't have to agree with him to see that. President Bush decided to call it a war a long time ago, so the discussion is academic. At this point, it's more about learning how to spot the manipulations than much else. Well, I suppose fighting the evil empire does make one a freedom fighter in a rather indirect way. What the mujahedeen believe is religious freedom is anything except what the words mean, as the state they built after the Soviet retreat proved, nor would they shout out "freedom" anymore than the spartan in that film.

Quote:

No it isn't. A conflict doesn't have a for or against, the people fighting in it do and to say that fighting against a nation makes a conflict a war is to fall back on the notion that terrorists get to determine what is a war and what isn't.

Quote:

How is it that we were able to contend with the challenge of the Cold War and terrorism at the same time, but 10 years later and suddenly terrorism is an existential threat to civilization?

Quote:

I said we lost when we called it a war because calling it a war frames the conflict in ways that aren't conducive for victory. Dropping bombs on far away villages from 30,000 feet isn't how terrorists are beaten, it's how they win.

Quote:

Six months ago the EU didn't.

Quote:

Waziristan is a rogue province of Pakistan. Had Bush kept his eye on OBL, he probably would have attacked Waziristan by now.

Quote:

Like I wrote, we don't have to agree with their notions of religious freedom to see that they are fighting for what they believe is religious freedom.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: No it isn't. A conflict doesn't have a for or against, the people fighting in it do and to say that fighting against a nation makes a conflict a war is to fall back on the notion that terrorists get to determine what is a war and what isn't. The terrorists do get to determine what is war and what isn't by mounting successful operations against vital targets (many not domestic). Naturally, if someone in a cave on the rim of nowhere declares war, that doesn't make it so.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: How is it that we were able to contend with the challenge of the Cold War and terrorism at the same time, but 10 years later and suddenly terrorism is an existential threat to civilization? Existential threats usually aren't - even nuclear war is overrated, as general Turgidson observed. Terrorism can force open societies closed. [1] All freedom and rights advocacy is a few attacks from being pushed aside by the people (via elections) if not by the government.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: I said we lost when we called it a war because calling it a war frames the conflict in ways that aren't conducive for victory. Dropping bombs on far away villages from 30,000 feet isn't how terrorists are beaten, it's how they win. I don't see that calling it a war invalidates the need for good intelligence on the ground to paint targets for those bombs.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Six months ago the EU didn't. Maybe they felt like talking and engaging.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Waziristan is a rogue province of Pakistan. Had Bush kept his eye on OBL, he probably would have attacked Waziristan by now. The angry reaction in Pakistan to the American bombings in Waziristan suggests doing so might have destabilized the government there.

Quote:

Original post by Diodor Quote: Like I wrote, we don't have to agree with their notions of religious freedom to see that they are fighting for what they believe is religious freedom. This is silly. If they have a very different definition for religious freedom (one that includes killing Muslim apostates or converts to Christianity - when not Shia heretics), then the translation of the foreign words they use for "religious freedom" would map on the English words closest to that definition, i.e. not freedom.

Quote:

China signalled yesterday that its first missile strike against an orbiting satellite was intended to force the US into talks aimed at abolishing weapons in space. As it faced an international chorus of protest against its test — the first such launch for 20 years — its officials insisted that they wanted space to be free of weapons. “As the Chinese Government, our principle stand is to promote the peaceful use of space,” a Foreign Ministry spokesman said. “We oppose the militarisation of space. In the past, in the present and in the future, we are opposed to any arms race in space. Of this everyone can be confident.” ... Beijing has increased defence spending by 10 per cent every year since 1990. Last year spending rose nearly 15 per cent to $35.5 billion (£18 billion). Experts believe that the true figure is far higher, in part because the official budget does not include military development costs. ... White House critics said that the Chinese test was a result of President Bush’s aggressive unilateralism, this time in his space policy. Last year the US expressly ignored Chinese and Russian calls for a global ban on the development of space weapons. Instead, a new policy preserved America’s right to develop military space technology, while “dissuading” others. ...