What is War?

The indispensable Glenn Greenwald just posted another in a long series of must-reads on The Intercept.  In it, he breaks down the label of 'terrorism' that's being applied to the murders of Marines in Chattanooga.  If, in fact, the murder was motivated by radical Islam, does that make this automatically a case of 'terrorism' as reports seem to indicate? 

No.  Well, maybe.  But not really.

As the estimable Mr. Greenwald explains, the word 'terrorism' has been bled of all meaning by the US government and the media outlets that cover these stories.  Simply put, it's 'terror' when Islamic people attack Western or Israeli people.  It's 'the War on Terror' when the West attacks Islamists.  Even when Islamist militants attack military personnel, they are labelled 'terrorists.' 

The US has explicitly made it their policy that Islamist militants can and will be attacked anywhere in the world at any time.  There is no 'battlefield.'  If a target of the US is at home or in a car with civilians (or family) - it doesn't matter.  They can be - and are - targeted and killed. 

So why are US military personnel off-limits to Islamist militants while they are at home or in a car with family? 

The inequality in language serves to make any Western military (or CIA) attacks seem okay.  They are protecting their citizens by killing a bad guy in his living room in Somalia.  Or a guy they think is a bad guy.  Or - and this is true - killing a guy because he's presumed to be bad because he lives in the same neighborhood as a bad guy.  Can you imagine being blown away because the guy three doors down is an asshole?

So which side is right?  Answer:  neither.  Islamic attacks on civilians and military personnel not engaged in combat operations are terrorism.  Guess what?  So are drone strikes by the US and allies.  State terror is still terror.  Neither act of violence should be allowed.  But while most Islamist attacks are not centrally coordinated, the Western attacks are.  If Western leadership ordered a stop, they would stop. 

Look:  Islamist violence which to we are unfortunately accustomed is a pure evil in the world.  Stopping that violence is a complex challenge involving international and community engagement.  It also involves the cessation of murderous drone strikes.  The US has become the nation of 'death from the sky.'  When did the whole 'freedom' thing go away?  Because that used to be the Americans calling card. 

While this discussion has robbed 'terrorism' of any coherent meaning, it's also taken away the definition of 'war.'  A war is a declared conflict between two uniformed military forces on a defined battlefield.  The uniform makes a difference here - a combatant in a war can be treated as a spy if they are not in uniform.

But how can we have a 'war of terror' when one side has no uniforms and the other side doesn't define a battlefield?  It's not 'war' when somebody in plain dress (as defined by the region) opens fire unexpectedly on unprepared people.  That's at least murder and possibly 'terrorism' (if a definition can be found).  But by the same token, how is it 'war' to prowl the skies over a large territory that may have militant inhabitants and then kill them - and unidentified people around them. 

If this is war let it be war.  Not an 'authorization for the use of military force.'  I don't see that in the constitution.  The West should use violence only to stop a uniformed, identifiable enemy (ISIS and Boko Haram fit the bill) or in a law enforcement capacity. 

The idea of an American president reviewing a list of people to be killed is an abomination.  President Obama's Tuesday hit list review is no more legal than an orgamized crime boss doing the same thing.

We need to put 'war' back in its place in the dictionary.  And the law back in our military policy.