Skip to main content

The Realities Of War


Apparently, many Americans believe that wars are and should be fought along certain rules of chivalry. What a shock it has been to find the U.S.  military capable of a dastardly attack on an individual who repeatedly had planned operations that killed and maimed American civilian and uniformed personnel along with many others. The fact that this person held a high rank in his own country's elite force seems to be expected to give him protected status. The entire concept is absurd, and it certainly was not the reason why two previous presidential administrations chose not to close down the activities of this dangerous and unscrupulous killer.

Then there is the argument that this man was considered such a high official that killing him would be considered a war crime. This too would be a fanciful notion. Without a doubt past historical figures of dastardly repute were always deemed legitimate targets. The list would go on at great length. To accept the concept of “too high ranking to kill” is a direct insult to all who have been merely lowly enlisted men. And that doesn't even consider the purposeful annihilation of generations of civilians as ancillary casualties.

Another specious argument is the one that suggests a declaration of war must be in hand or else the act of killing a high-ranking terrorist organizer, trainer and planner may be considered an illegal action. In point of fact, attaining high office in an undeclared war, or more accurately characterized as a large-scale assassination program does not protect anyone or any group from counter action. After two World Wars and many other “side shows” of lesser size, such as Vietnam and Korean wars, there is just no place for convenient innocence and lack of accountability. As the old British saying goes: “It's just not cricket, old boy.”

An additional point is that today to inhibit what are now called “proxy wars” and the guidance and support of same, democratic nations such as the United States simply have to do whatever they can and hope for the best. This may seem to be lacking in legal form, but it is reality. Frankly, it's a guide that General George Washington followed. The history books will bear this out. America's revolutionary war was not fought following Marquis of Queensbury rules. The ragtag assemblage of Patriots didn't even know what the rules were. The British Crown followed the rules, but only when convenient – and that was the reason for the war in the first place.

Ultimately, politics – American and European - were the only real aims in condemning the militarily perfect destruction of an unsuspecting perpetrator of horrendous acts against humanity. The funny thing is that the Persians have known about that sort of thing for centuries. The Hollywoodesque crowd scenes honoring the death of Qasem Soleimani are straight out of medieval times – and just as politically effective. In fact, the political impact in the Western world would have made Cyrus The Great blush with pride.

In the end, the Iranians felt the weight of Moscow and Beijing counselling them to follow a careful and limited military counteraction. They too have a strong interest in encouraging Tehran to restrict the Ayatollah’s reaction to the American action. These are complicated times and one man's death cannot and should not be used as a tool of domestic power?

That's the real world!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Isis, Islam, Intervention

Reality on the ground is often quite different than what appears in news commentary and even Executive Department briefing papers. This is essentially true regarding terrorism in general. The statement has been made that ISIS has been effectively defeated in Syria and the Taliban reduced in strength in Afghanistan. These are the reasons for withdrawing U.S. military forces from these combat areas. Unfortunately, such a definitive circumstance is belied by the reality on the ground. To begin with, the various organized terrorist groups in the Middle East may have different names and even sponsors, but they all share the same strategic goal. They are all Islamic in character, desire to remove western influence/control from a chosen sector – and in one form or another ultimately gain dominance over economic assets such as oil production and sale. Sometimes the real ambition is simply to gain unrestricted power for power's sake. To complicate things further, the number of “soldie...

Anatomy Of Terrorism

It is said that terrorism is the weapon of the weak against the strong. It's a saying that sounds good if one is seeking to defend or justify terrorist acts. However, it is just not true – at least if one is willing to consider blowing up a peaceful civilian structure as a terrorist act. The civilians in the building are hardly strong: they are defenseless and unprepared. The real strength lies with the terrorist bombers. They have all the advantages – weapons, organization, secrecy, initiative and commitment. Terrorism as a device is available to all. It's just a matter of utilizing a particular form of weapon for use in spreading fear while degrading the physical image of a something that is considered as playing part in the maintenance of order in an enemy's infrastructure. This means everything from community activity and edifices to their civil and security services. In other words, destabilizing any aspect of orderly life is a target. Of course, the military is not ...

Russia And China From An Intel Standpoint

It must be a very difficult job to be a Russian or Chinese intelligence officer these days, It's not the strength of the opposition – though of course that's always a consideration. The main reason is the lack of clear purpose. The world - the secret world that they deal in – is much more complicated these days. Sometimes the old enemy for these well-practiced operators is viewed differently by the officers' own political superiors. Frankly, it must be very hard to keep up with the changing perceptions of the leader-class who themselves seem to be playing “outside the lines” of historical perceptions. Of course, there is a difference between the two countries, so we will discuss them separately. First, the Russians – While the Western press and novelists (often indistinguishable) remain preoccupied with the Russian of previous decades, much has changed both in form and spirit in the Russian security apparat. To begin with, the international charter of what once was th...