Simple. We have not formally declared war, nor have we defined an enemy or a goal. A dictionary definition isn’t going to cut it. That’s got nothing to do with determining a legal state of war. Sorry to bust your bubble, but “The War On Terror” is just a bumper sticker. It’s not a phrase of any legal significance.
I have seen no reports that support your claim that 19 militants were killed. All the reports I have seen say that all the dead were rural villagers, with no foreigners among the dead. If you have more up to date information, by all means, share it.
I’m only going to address this part, but I think my answer addresses the rest of your post as well.
I’m not advocating a policy that mandates inaction if there may be civilian casualties. I’m advocating a pollicy that we don’t do something that absolutely will cause civilian casualties if all we’re going to get out of it is a few al Qaeda guys, even if one of them is al Zawahiri. I just don’t think it’s that important to kill this guy. In fact, we should be trying to capture him, not kill him.
We are in a conflict with al Qaeda in which they are trying to kill us. The only reason you could have for not calling it a war is that al Qaeda is not a country. But I don’t know that both parties have to be countries in order for a conflict to be called a war. They have declared war on us, so perhaps your argument is with them.
It’s not a war because we haven’t declared one. I also don’t think that AQ has any meaningful ability to declare war, but the most important thing is that Congress has not said we’re at war so we’re not at war. Even if you want to call AQ’s “declaration” enough to put us in a state of war, then who is the enemy? Is it just members of AQ or does it include others? Who can we say is definitely excluded as a target of our “war?”
That’s a semantic quibble that really doesn’t amount to much. They’re trying to kill us and we’re trying to kill them. Call it whatever you like.
It would appear, from the arguments made by the defenders of this action, that we are at war with Pakistan. Who knew?
Who is “them?”
So children in a backwater Pakistani village are militants?
You approve of killing children?
The article linked by the OP quotes a Pakistani official – the same official who says that Zawahiri is not among the dead – as saying the following:
So it appears that at least 7 of the dead were foreigners, and at least 11 of the dead may have been from rural villages, but that’s not all they were.
How would it change any of the arguments made herein if we changed the word “war” to “armed conflict involving our nation’s military and aQ”?
The enemy is aQ. It includes aQ and those aiding and abetting aQ in their conflict against us. It excludes everyone else.
I don’t see how this is different than any other armed conflict we’ve been involved in.
They were able to kill almost 3,000 Americans in one day, on US soil. I’d say their ability to declare and wage war is pertty darn good.
I could name an actual country that we were fighting for any other armed conflict we’ve been involved in. The “war” on Al-Qaida would more properly be pursued using police and law enforcement methods.
Also, it seems that attacks like this have galvanized anti-American sentiment, which does a heck of a lot more long term damage than even taking one dude out would achieve. I know some people think that this is not possible (and so any action is justifiable, since everyone is either with us or against us, and no change in sentiment makes any difference), but back in the real world, it is immensely valuable. The moral of “The Ugly American” come to mind.
Actually, I’d say that it’s pretty terrible. They hit a single non-military target, not by superior force, but by subterfuge, and they had the advantage that no one manning the local defenses knew it was coming. In what war is that much of an accomplishment? In virtually any other war I can think of, such would be considered a pretty minor accomplishment. The fact that it innocent civilians is even more pathetic. Anyone can kill civilians.
Sorry, two (or three targets) given how you define the stike. But all as a part of a single operation that they almost certainly will not be able to repeat.
We’re not in an armed conflict. We’re just going around bombing the shit out people who aren’t fighting back.
That wasn’t an act of “war,” it was a one-off criminal act that can’t be repeated. The US is not in any danger.
The first World Trade Center bombing. USS Cole. Embassy bombings. Oklahoma City.
While I agree that this adminstration has gained, and expanded, their power by mining the fear and hatred of it’s citizens, you’re simply wrong if you believe the US is not in any danger. It’s nowhere near what the Bush administration would have us believe, but it’s not non-existant either.
As Bob Dylan said,
“How come d’ya have ta’ ask me that”
IANAA, but what does the Oklahoma bombing have to do with this?