David and Goliath

This past Veteran's Day, I gave a speech on this holiday's significance to a group at a local college. As so happens, the discussion turned towards the war in Iraq. We were (politely believe it or not) discussing the war in Iraq in the context of the Global War on Terrorism when an older Cuban gentleman posed this question: "What is the difference between a terrorist and someone who is a legitimate resistance fighter?"

Fair question...

And my answer was this: “A terrorist intentionally targets, to kill or wound, civilians in order to instill fear into the population of a state in order to coerce that state into accepting their agenda. A freedom fighter attacks lawful targets (as defined under the Geneva Conventions and the Law of Land Warfare) to force the state to legitimize their cause.

What are considered lawful targets? Military personnel and equipment, for example. This is why I cannot fault the Iraqi insurgents for attacking military convoys, patrols, etc. I can fault attacks on Iraqi civilians by the insurgents at polling stations, hospitals, mosques, etc., or taking civilian aid workers or journalists hostage. This falls outside the realm of the internationally accepted definition of lawful war.”

The question was then posed, by a slight, soft spoken Japanese woman, that, “The United States should then be considered a state sponsor of terror due to its targeting of civilians in the atomic bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.”

Another fair question...which I answered...

“The difference was one of, unfortunately, numbers. The two atomic bombs were used to avoid a massive US invasion of mainland Japan. Such an invasion would have caused casualties to both military and civilians on both sides on the order of hundreds of thousands, if not millions. So the decision to drop the two atomic bombs was a lesser of two evils. Drop it and kill 100,000 Japanese (approximate total, the majority of which were civilians, according to the Avalon Project at Yale Law School) with no US casualties and minimal damage to the economic and cultural infrastructure of Japan, or invade the Japanese mainland, kill untold numbers of US military and Japanese civilians and military, and destroy the vast majority of the Japanese infrastructure. Do to the effects of "Fat Man" and "Little Boy", the Japanese surrendered unconditionally ending one of the worst wars the world had ever seen.”

Was this attack justified under the circumstances at the time? I believe it was. The world was embroiled in an "unrestricted war", a war that could only be won through massive military conflict at all levels (military, economic, political) involving the entire population of both nations. Unfortunately, the scale of this type of attack was necessary to end the war and thus end the suffering.

We do not face that kind of enemy today. In many ways, we are a victim of our own success. Because of our massive strength and global reach, any military move we make looks like a provocation and therefore, in the eyes of the "oppressed", any asymmetric tactic, to include terrorism or weapons of mass destruction, can be used by David against the modern Goliath without justification and with tacit international support. What we have seen in Tehran in 1979, Beirut in 1983/84, Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in 1998, Aden in 2000, and New York in 1993 and 2001 and many other places throughout recent history and around the globe is just that.

Some of those attacks were legitimate military targets...some were not. And if David wants to hit Goliath…fine. But when David's intentional targets become those defined by the Geneva Conventions as noncombatants, David had better be prepared for the full wrath of Goliath (this ain't the Bible...this is reality), and not cry foul as he is slowly and methodically eliminated with extreme prejudice. A moral imperative demands it.