Elusive Trope's picture

    When is War Not a War?

    By Elusive Trope on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 8:54pm |

    Libya has really brought a lot issues to the forefront lately.  One of those is what is the definition of war.  After skimming the blogosphere, one can from US point of view, say that war is anytime that tomahawk missles and some jets drop some bombs is an act of war. 

    In other words, war is any act of overt act of a government's military against another country.

    There is a certain logic to this.

    But this excludes entirely and permanently the use of a country's military for humanitary purposes.  Had we intervened in Rwanda, it would be an act of war.  If we step into the fray on the people's side in Eygpt it would have been an act of war. 

    I don't think one can truly have a dictionary definition of war that can be applied to every variation we face in the world, and which takes into account all the things that need to be considered.

    Yet one facet about war that is critical to me is that is two (or more) sides are in a struggle where there is a victor and a vanquished.  In this perspective, we go to war with Libya, and its current political powers, when we seek through the military actions the undoing of that status quo.  If we seek through the military action only that the political status quo change its course of action, then it something, but it may not be war.

    Just as if we had the courage to go into Rwanda.

    Of course, there is oil in Libya.  So that kind of changes things.  Or maybe it doesn't.

    Comments

    of a government's military

    Unlike here, where the act is the security council's and the military is merely in support of the council.  This is a virtual UN army carrying out a security council intervention within in fairly clear R2P guidelines.  The evolution of a jurisprudence of protection.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:02pm

    and oil....

             also.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:03pm

    I guess my point in this is that yes there nuances when a government, including the United States of America, uses its military, and I just don't see it in the discourse very much.  A lot of talk about impact on budget and economy, etc.but the idea that it isn't Obama declaring war on Libya is ridiculed.


    by Elusive Trope on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:08pm

    the idea that it isn't Obama declaring war on Libya is ridiculed.

    Rightly, in some senses, since the UN was intended as an arm of US diplomacy, and since without our partiipatioin it doesn't happen, but the outward forms are important, especisally as a jurisprudence evolves--think how inchoate the idea of  judicial review was before Marshall did a jiu jitsu on the executive branch.in  marbury.


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:33pm

    Since we never really got the hang of war being declared by Congress, wars are what force is applied by the Executive when they choose to use it.

    Different ways of using force have been discussed since the establishment of the Republic but none of that talk has changed how it actually goes down.


    by moat on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:36pm

     we never really got the hang 

    I feel that I am present at the foundation of a new school of constitutional jurisprudence...


    by jollyroger on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 9:40pm

    In other words, war is any act of overt act of a government's military against another country.

    There is a certain logic to this.

    But this excludes entirely and permanently the use of a country's military for humanitary purposes.  Had we intervened in Rwanda, it would be an act of war.  If we step into the fray on the people's side in Eygpt it would have been an act of war.

    I don't see the problem. In the Rwanda and Egypt cases, it would have been an act of war with a humanitarian aim. What is wrong with that?

    Is it just that you feel 'act of war' is regarded as bad and 'humanitarian purposes' is regarded as good? But that excludes the very idea of a 'Good War', something I perhaps believe is indeed an oxymoron, but I thought I was in a small minority on that.

    Is it that you think humanitarian aims aren't among the traditional 'just causes' on the basis of which one can resort to war? That would, given the longstanding theoretical tradition, be wrong as well. Protection of innocents from their own government is in the standard list.

    Another random thought - your definition excludes civil war, which is what there was in Libya until the US led forces turned it into an international conflict, between the Libyan government, the rebels and the rebels foreign allies. I don't see why the particular reasons, however laudable, for our intercession have any effect on whether or not the situation can be described as War.


    by Obey on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:28pm

    "War" can be something as simple as holiday dinner at the ex-in-laws. Just saying, is all. 


    by SleepinJeezus on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 8:52am

    It's still a war regardless potential outcomes. There have been plenty of wars where at the end one party cedes and changes behavior, gives up land, etc. etc. To me it's the fact that we are engaging an organized state.

    In contrast, I don't think the WOT is a war at all. AQ should never have been elevated to "state" status. They should be viewed as an organized crime syndicate and approached with the attitude and tools of law enforcement.


    by kgb999 on Tue, 03/22/2011 - 10:42pm

    Many moons ago the house next to the one I was renting was raided by the police one night.  I was alerted to it by a sudden shout "police" and the sound of them bashing the door down with one of those hand held battering rams.  I looked out the window to see about ten police officers in the black full-body armour and helmets, each one carrying huge automatic weapons, just before they stormed through doorway.  One could say that it was an incident on the "war on drugs."  In other words, bringing a law enforcement approach is not avoiding the use of violent and sometimes lethal force by the state on others, whether another state or NGO.

    What I probably didn't really make clear in my blog is that while a war is a war is a war, everybody has their own idea of what the means, which may or may not conform to the realities of what is happening (especially given no one can see all the angles and agenda and motivations of even a limited action like what is happening in Egypt).  It was like this morning one of the pundits said how it didn't look good for Obama to be South America while the US was "invading" Egypt.  What does one do when one goes to war, one invades another country, so if we are at war with Libya, then we must in effect be invading the country, which has the implication of "boots on ground" and occupation. 

    So we could say because we are flying overhead and dropping bombs, there is an invasion of the country.  But is that really what we tend to mean we say one country is invading another country? 

    And the use of law enforcement approach on an entity like AQ occurs in areas where "law enforcement" from the US doesn't have legal jurisdication.  So in those cases is really enforcing the law, or something else, that kind of looks like law enforcement. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:07pm

    I've lived in America a long time. I'm quite aware of the full implications in advocating a "law enforcement" approach in the WOT vs. a military one. You are focused on one tactic, but the entire approach is different.

    There have been wars fought entirely on the high seas - no invasion necessary. The distinction is two states with the CAPACITY to negotiate an equitable outcome or ultimately suffer defeat. In my mind a state is an organized political apparatus formed to service/rule a distinct geographical region and all the people who live within it. It is ultimately an issue of the competing interests of the geopolitical adversaries and is resolved through wide-ranging negotiations with near limitless flexibility as to the provisions.

    In law enforcement the objective is to build a case against a criminal and hold that individual accountable based on the non-negotiable legal structures of states and the international community as they exist. There isn't a place where America doesn't have legal jurisdiction in relation to the crimes AQ accused of. At least not according to our laws.

    It is the support of various states for these laws where the breakdown occurs. Which is what happened in Afghanistan. A state apparatus refused to enforce the law and hand Bin Laden over for prosecution. At that point the conflict becomes a conflict between states and you end up with war. But the war is with the STATE protecting AQ, not AQ itself. The objective vis a vis AQ is STILL to hold members accountable for individual violations of law.

     


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 2:59pm

    I'm not really focused on tactics at all in terms of judging which is better approach, but how people talk about and perceive what being talked about.  The "War on Drugs" is a case in point.  It wasn't the "Struggle Against Drugs" or "The Effort to Stop the Flow of Drugs into the Country."  The military was used in many cases, along with law enforcement.

    And if the military sending tomahawk missles constitutes a war, then isn't what Clinton did back in the 90s to AQ constitute meaning we are war with them, regardless of whatever legal approaches we might do after that? 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 4:34pm

    Unless you are counting stuff like taking out Noriega (which was an act of war/coup against Panama ... Noriega was an official POW) or our cooperation with the Colombian government at a state level, the military hasn't really been used in the war on drugs domestically. That was the whole justification for turning our domestic police forces into paramilitary operations. And yes, our "War on Drugs" represents the seminal moment at which "war" became a meaningless political construct to justify any damn fool thing law enforcement wanted to do.

    Also, without AQ achieving state status somehow (acquired recognized territory, formed government, etc.), Clinton sending Tomahawk missiles constituted war against what ever nation those missiles hit.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 4:50pm

    Trope: "...If we seek through the military action only that the political status quo change its course of action, then it something, but it may not be war.

    Is that what 'we seek'?  Which status quo?  I've read parts of the mandate, but people seem to have different takes on what it means, what the goals are, what they aren't...  What do you see?  Just a no-fly zone, or the wider mission?

     


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:00am

    I see a lot of players, both inside the US and in the broader coalition with different agendas.  I think the UN can only be active on the world stage with vague agreement.  It is the nature of committees, especially ones that are diverse as those at the UN. 

    I also believe that if Kaddafi was to pull back and basically hand over the eastern part of the country, then even if that wasn't what someone in the coalition wanted, it would back off.  I doubt he will do that.  In this way it is very similiar to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia states. 

    In some ways the action came about with people not exactly clear what constituted success, but looking at where things were heading if there was no action and found that unacceptable.  Similiar to the Rwanda situation.  And maybe that isn't the best approach in this situation. 

    Personally I have mixed feelings about it all.  And the only way I think I could know exactly where I stood is if I was in the position of actually making the decision. 


    by Elusive Trope on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 1:17pm

    I'm not sure I saw the answer to my question in there, but okay.  Just for some perspective, I thought I would post this diary from My,fdl.  It's a man living in Iraq who belongs to a group called Gorilla's Guides, a number of whom post there, some of the Qur'an, some on ME music, some on geopolitics and the wars--they are all Muslim, at any rate. 

    Ibn Laith  is so furious at the US that he won't even speak to anyone not totally condemning US policy, occupation and murder.  His take on our war with Libya is at least worth reading.  Once.

    Many denizens there believe his location and experiences give him such credibility that he doesn't have to converse; I find I sure don't want to weigh in or ask questions again.  ;o)

    http://my.firedoglake.com/mohammedibnlaith/2011/03/22/why-libya-is-being-bombed-but-bahrain-is-not/


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 2:13pm

    That post doesn't really make any sense. I mean ... I can't figure out WTF he's trying to say. Maybe there is meta-significance I'm not getting with the upside-down bit or something?

    Conflation to Iraq is what I see as the essential intellectual fallacy underlying their entire position over at FDL (and apparently within the wider anti-war movement; but I haven't done an extensive roundup to verify this ... Michael Moore is pretty much all I've got). This isn't Iraq. Any analysis - even from an impassioned Iraqi - that starts from the basic premise this is just "another Iraq invasion" ("another invasion of an Arab/Muslim nation", etc.) is demonstratively wrong. There are almost zero similarities between the two ... our military *was* involved in both; we *did* use Tomahawks in both; and there *is* oil in both countries. Those three spurious and trivial facts does not an equivalence make.

    The anti-war movement basically walked on to a baseball diamond, pulled out a playbook for the Chicago bears, put down a football, and started trying to make a drive for a non-existent end-zone. Until observations like these are acknowledged and accounted for, there really has not been a intellectual case made against the actions we're undertaking. It's as if the holiness of opposition to US military action is so self-evident that a coherent explanation for why that is true in any given instance is not only unnecessary, the request for such is insulting.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 4:02pm

    Bugger!  I just lost half an hour's worth of writing while I was chasing links.  Shorter for now, because I have work to do: he put part of his speech from Cairo upside-down because he thinks Obama has been doing the upside-down (reverse, converse, whatever) of what he said.  I will try to rewrite some later, but FDL isn't monolithic, even though I don't really care for much of the repetetive grousing there.  Juan Cole has a piece up listing the ten ways Iraq is not like Libya; he doesn't say in which ways they ARE alike, sadly. 


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 5:39pm

    Awww man. Sorry you lost your post. And yeah, no community is a monolith. I had to roll with what I see as the prevailing/dominant consensus ... FDL just happens to be where I've gotten my feel for the anti-war position because that's where I'm a member (some core members of the movement actually do participate there). I can't see creating an opinion matrix for every participant in the forum so individuals don't feel improperly generalized.

    That Juan Cole post is one of the links in my comment. Since I agree with the points he made and can see having generated that post myself, I'm kind of internalizing your compliant he didn't provide the counter-argument.

    I really don't think there ARE ten non-superficial ways in which this is just like Iraq. It seems unfair to ask those who think you are wrong to engage in a faux-balance game. Isn't it kind of incumbent on those asserting this is much like Iraq to make the list that supports their assertion? (recognizing that just such a list may have been in the links you lost). That would go a long way to making the anti-war case.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 7:01pm

    Actually, the burden of proof should be on those who want to deliberately kill people, no?


    by acanuck on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 9:54pm

    Er, who was it in this situation that was (blatantly) saying he wanted to deliberately kill other people? The UN resolution was actually mainly about stopping that from happening.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:01pm

    Sure. Find some people like that and ask them for an explanation.

    We're talking about if the anti-war folks are able to provide justification for favoring the slaughter of men women and childern in Bengazi - rebel and civilian alike - and being against having saved them.

    Those of us in support of intervention have made our case. I take it nobody on the anti-war front has managed to yet? Don't worry. Sooner or later there will be a civilian casualty confirmed and then anti-war folks can ingore the thousands saved and hang their hat on that.


    by kgb999 on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:26pm

    Hey, kgb; sorry, but I bailed and wrote at Doc Cleveland's blog.  Wore myself plum out, too!  ;o)

    Might not have been the 'intellectual argument' you were looking for, nor was it the reasons Iraq and Libya are alike, but I hadn't actually said I would participate in that, though several similarities are obvious.

     


    by we are stardust on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 10:18pm

    http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/20110321/525cartoon20110321horsey.jpg


    by cmaukonen on Wed, 03/23/2011 - 11:40am

    Latest Comments