I guess I'm posting to you because you seem to be online now.
I had to laugh after reading the various posts on what is and what isn't a "war."
It seems to me that an enemy who has declared war on us, who is known to try to get nuclear weapons and other WMD to use against our civilians, who bombs our embassies, fights our soldiers, kills our civilians, has sworn to kill us wherever he finds us, and is actively planning attacks on civilian and military targets as we speak, is engaged in a war with us.
The damage this enemy can do and is planning on doing is massive, on a par to that caused by any powerful nation state.
Sure, the enemy doesn't wear uniforms, doesn't use classical military organization schemes, doesn't award medals for heroism as far as we know, but this is all beside the point. Any group that has sworn to do away with us by force and is taking active credible steps towards doing so is at war with us.
History is replete with examples of war organized more or less along similar lines, and once again the Islamists provide the appropriate templates. I'm sure that the Hindus, the Chinese, the Spanish who fought the Islamists of their era didn't stick their thumb in their butt wondering if the conflict was really a "war." Ditto the Europeans who fought them at Vienna's outskirts.
If it is a existential conflict, and it is one now, it is a war. |
