That’s absolutely possible. I’m simply saying that an act of war is not always comprised as an attack, and wittingly or unwittingly these men have succeeded with their deaths in raising awareness once more among the short-attention-span American populace. In that respect it can be seen as an act of asymmetrical warfare, even if it is totally by accident.
Can you elaberate on how you’re using the term “assymetrical”? Does it have some meaning in the military that it doesn’t normally have for civilians?
I thought I read that these guys left suicide notes, in which case we should be able to read their intentions. But still, and act of suicide = an act of war? I can’t fathom how that could be…
That’s what i was wondering.
Actually, John, a search reveals an article on the subject at Wikipedia.
Note that there is a warning at the top of the page saying that the neutrality and accuracy of the article are disputed. Still, having read the whole thing, i still think it’s a stretch to describe these suicides as asymmetric warfare.
Asymmetric warfare refers to unconvential tactics used by a weaker opponent against a stronger. It pretty much decribes any tactics used to exploit the weaknesses of an enemy with a strong numerical or technological advantage. It practice it has often been used in reference to guerilla tactics and/or terrorism.
I refer you to this superb post by ex-doper military historian garius over on NADS. Enlightened the shit out of me. I still don’t agree with the Rear Admiral, but it’s a very interesting subject nonetheless.
I wonder if the Admiral was aware before he made his remarks that one of his assymetric warriors had been declared “a safe person, free to be released”. With regard to that individual at least, either the release program is faulty, or the admiral is full of shit.
I don’t think you can classify something as an act of war if it’s by accident. Surely “act of war” implies purpose?
Not so. This is getting off the topic a bit, but from a purely technical point of view a military aircraft going off course and ending up in the airspace of a hostile country can be considered an act of war. Violation of territorial waters is an act of war. Accidents all, and yet in some cases that’s enough.
Yes, I know that that doesn’t really relate to the matter at hand, but it does illustrate that “purpose” is not really necessary. Of course, if they were doing it to make a statement (like the monk in Vietnam that set himself on fire) that would constitute purpose, wouldn’t you say?
It would be considered an act of war because the country would assume it wasn’t by accident. To use a similar analogy on a smaller scale, would it be an act of war if a soldier slipped and fell over a border line? The difference is that the mistake is obvious, and so much less likely to be (wrongly) considered an act of war.
Yes, it would. But then it wouldn’t be an accident, would it?
But how are we to know that? That’s the point. You can’t divine intent from a dead man without an explanation, like a suicide note of some sort. If that exists, I’ll be glad to concede the point. I’m just justifying why the statement isn’t totally off base from a certain point of view.
This appears to me as though you are arguing that civilian acts of political protest are synonymous with “asymmetric warfare.” I am misunderstanding your point, yes?
Oh, I agree they could have killed themselves in order (or partially in order) to create this backlash, it just had to be purposeful and towards that end if it can even start to be thought of as an “act of war”.
What’s a civilian?
You know intuitively what a civilian is, but people are entitled to defend their homes. At what point does resistance constitute a military action?
The insurgency in Iraq, strangely enough, is legitimate from a certain point of view. The same goes for the insurgency in Afghanistan. If these guys in Guantanamo are innocent, as some would contend (I’ll meet you halfway on that and say that some are innocent, and regardless this “enemy combatant” classification is nonsense- they’re either POWs or they’re not and should be treated as such) they are still entitled to resist. Resistance in captivity is permitted under the Geneva Conventions and is in fact taught in US survival schools.
Was this an act of resistance, or was it just plain suicide? If it was resistance, it therefore presumes that it was an act committed in captivity by a POW and therefore it falls under the category of lawful resistance of a POW. If it was simply suicide it was nonetheless effective as a demonstration and can therefore be considered detrimental to their captors, thus it is an unintentional form of assymetric warfare. Either way, it is damaging to the United States, and the General making the statement acknowledged it as such with his statement.
Like I said, nuanced.
And like I said, you can’t have unintentional warfare. For an act to be classified as warfare it has to be purposeful (and purposeful towards that end).
And I clearly disagree. Such is life. 
What acts of resistance don’t constitute a military action? It seems to me that if killing yourself in captivity can be characterized as an “act of war,” then pretty much anything is fair game. In other words, any act, whether civilian or military, that damages the United States in any capacity whatsoever can be regarded as an act of war against the United States? If the Iraqi insurgents suddenly laid down their rifles and instead decided to hunger strike until the U.S. left, by this definition they’d still be attacking us, wouldn’t they? If they even wrote scathing letters of disapproval to the editorial page of the Baghdad Post-Gazette, wouldn’t that be damaging our mission? Am I engaging in asymmetric warfare against the United States right now, by expressing disapproval of the situation at Guantanamo? I’m just not getting this. Your argument is too nuanced for my leathery brain.
Hey, you’re not allowed to be reasonable! This is the Pit! I demand you insult me and my view immediately! 
Yep.
Nuanced in a “We had to destroy the village in order to save it” kind of way.
Bush and many of his supporters say the US is a Christian nation, but i’m really starting to think that the government, at least, worships Orwell.
As it says in the linked Wikipedia article, “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter”. Can you tell the difference?
From the point of view of the government, and therefore the upper echelon of the miltary, these people are terrorists. I tend not to agree with that, because I have yet to see any proof. Others disagree completely and see them as innocents and civilians, yet undoubtedly some of them were caught resisting. You tell me what’s what.
I think I’ve said enough in that regard. I have my own line to toe.