by RICoder » Aug 23, 2004 @ 3:17am
The difference is simple. A terrorist attack in a non-combat zone is simply that, a terrorist attack. I.e. the Kobar Towars, the embassies in Africa, the World Trade Center I, the World Trade Center 2. A terrorist attack (i.e. car bomb, et al) in a war zone is warfare conducted in a different manner.
I would point out that this is part of the thesis of Sun Tzu applied to the wars in Iraq and Afghanastan. We have brought the war to our enemies. This a) choses the battle ground, b) smokes the a small and mobile group from out of their hiding places, and c) removes their primary affective superiority vis a vis suprise.
War, certainly against terrorists, is nuanced and complicated (to coin a phrase). You may not particularly agree with the methods, but denying that it is A form of warfare on our enemy is obtuse.
Furthermore, the logic of NOT going to certain places or doing certain things because it may lead to more terrorists being bred is not a valid argument on its face. One could concievably say that, as an example, marching into Mecca[sic], would be foolish for that reason, and that may stand. However, it stands because the benifits (if any) would be far outweighed by the negative consequences. To this end, suggesting that as a reason NOT to invade Iraq is both wrong and fallacious. While it may indeed breed terrorists, its benifits (especially if you accept the premise above) are far in excess and thus make it a valid move. Be aware, as well, that no matter what we do, terrorists will be bred. Afghanastan is a good example...since almost unanimously people think it was a good idea, even though it did indeed breed terrorists.
<iframe src="http://gamercard.xbox.com/RICoder.card" scrolling="no" frameBorder="0" height="140" width="204">RICoder</iframe>
Retiring GOP congressman breaks ranks on Iraq
