Terrorists aren't Soldiers aren't Warriors

Terrorists ≠ Soldiers ≠ Warriors
________

Ranger question of the Day: Are we a nation led by a Commander in Chief, or by a President? The key is that the C in C has military requirements, and the president has Constitutional. Are we a military state, or a democracy ruled by law?
________

The title of Wesley Clark's recent New York Times editorial, "Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers," suggests that the authors understand the problems associated with the Phony War on Terror (PWOT ©) However, a close reading points up some misunderstandings and contradictions.

The first paragraph enlists the word "transnational" to define the terrorist threat, when "international" would be a more apt description of the nature of the threat. Transnational implies players which are able to function by feeding off of certain interconnected networks or conduits, which are transnational in nature.

However, if we are to understand al Qaida, we must understand it does not simply transfer materiel, funds and personnel among a few nations. Rather, it has an actual presence --sleeper cell or otherwise -- globally. We must define our adversaries precisely if we are to correctly countenance them.

Another muddled statement occurs here:

"Critics have rightly pointed out that traditional categories of combatant and civilian are muddled in a struggle against terrorists. In a traditional war, combatants and civilians are relatively easy to distinguish. The 9/11 hijackers, by contrast, dressed in ordinary clothes and hid their weapons. They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda, a shadowy transnational network. And their prime targets were innocent civilians."

First, identification of combatant and civilian can become confused in a battle scenario where uniforms are not required (Geneva Convention Protocols of 1977), but that is irrespective of the issue of terrorists. It is not only terrorists who do not adopt typical Army uniforms. And even if they did, they would still not be legitimate soldiers. Wearing a uniform doesn't make you a legitimate Soldier (see GWB's Top Gun show, for an example.)

Of the 9-11 hijackers he says, "They acted not as citizens of Saudi Arabia, an ally of America, but as members of Al Qaeda. . ." With certainty, how do we know they weren't acting in Saudi Arabia's interest?

Clark is right that treating terrorists as combatants is a violation of U.S. and international law, but the problem is not that simple. Clark talks of the 9-11 hijackers who are pure and simple terrorists, and therefore, criminal in all senses of the word. They were not soldiers. Jihadists certainly, but not soldiers.

Not only do we dignify criminals -- like terrorists --by mis-designating them as soldiers (=combatants), but we fail to accord proper categorization to actual soldiers. Just because people fight against us, doesn't make them "illegal combatants."

They may be enemies, for sure, but on the battlefield, the rules of battle allow them to attack and kill our soldiers, much as we have the same right. This griffin designation "illegal enemy combatant" must be abolished.

The problem is that the U.S. has taken legitimate combatants such as Hamdan and treated them as something less than criminals. They became the detainee untermenschen, outside the rule of civilized legal traditions.

A Taliban rifleman and an Iraqi insurgent have every legitimate right to fight a foreign invading army. They may or may not be affiliated with a terrorist organization, but if captured engaging military forces, then they are POWs. While a legitimate soldier may affiliate with a terror organization, he does not receive GC status unless fighting as a soldier, in which case, that classification trumps all other affiliations.

The authors use terms like "to defeat terrorists" and "terrorism should be fought." It is not valid to say terrorists aren't soldiers in one breath, and then to use military terms to define approaches to the problem in the next.

One neither defeats nor fights terrorists. One fights and defeats a military opponent. We can do better than to co-opt the use of military jargon for use in the civil arena.

Clark is wrong in the following statement:

"Labeling terrorists as combatants also leads to this paradox: while the deliberate killing of civilians is never permitted in war, it is legal to target a military installation or asset. Thus the attack by Al Qaeda on the destroyer Cole in Yemen in 2000 would be allowed, as well as attacks on command and control centers like the Pentagon."

If his idea is correct, then the perpetrators of the Cole attack would be POWs when and if apprehended and arrested.

However, there was no belligerency involved with the Cole incident; it was strictly a criminal attack. By not recognizing the circumstances of the attack, he has wrongly legitimized terrorism.

Notably, the U.S. reply to this incident was unambiguous and correct. The FBI investigated the incident as a crime, in coordination with the host nation.

If an individual al Qaida sleeper agent were discovered, he would deserve to be charged and tried in the best tradition of jurisprudence. Prefer charges and prove them; otherwise, forget it. At worst, simply evict the suspected party as an undesirable alien.

Clark goes on to indicate that terrorists are more like pirates than warriors. Neither term is quite right.

When did "warrior" enter the U.S. military lexicon, replacing "soldier"? Warrior is not a legal concept under U.S. law or the Geneva Conventions. What the hell is a warrior? Isn't a warrior somebody that carries arms for a warlord?

Also, Clark should remember that the U.S. government used to issue charters to privateers, who operated under official U.S. blessing. Privateers were pirates! Is pirate the best analogy that could be offered for describing terrorists?

His closing paragraph is correct, but it has been absolutely violated in the Iraq War scenario:

"We train our soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. Our political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which we are fighting, and further compromise our efforts to strengthen our security."

U.S. Special Forces soldiers in Afghanistan have killed more civilians this year than has the Taliban U.S. soldiers bust down doors in Iraq and Afghanistan. U.S. military have raped and murdered in theater. U.S. military have beaten, tortured and murdered valid prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Does this sound like respect?

At least Clark has recognized the guiding mistake of this enterprise: Terrorists are not soldiers. Terrorists are criminals, and should be prosecuted as such.