Getting the rules straight in this global war on terrorism
Wednesday, May 5, 2004 at 9:48AM Naming and Framing: Hello? Hello? Anybody listening?
ìTerror Inquiries Are Clouded by Global Discord: Breakdown in Cooperation Threatens Years of Work; Case of Courts vs. Military,î by Keith Johnson and David Crawford, Wall Street Journal, 4 May, p. A18.
ìIraq Contractors Pose Problem: In Prisoner-Abuse Case, Jurisdiction Over Civilian Workers Unclear,î by Greg Jaffe, David S. Cloud, and Gary Fields, WSJ, 4 May, p. A4.
The truest indicators that 9/11 signaled the need for a rule-set reset is thatóthree years lateróweíre still arguing first and foremost over definitions and terms in this global war on terrorism. These two articles demonstrate that continuing rule-set clash.
The first describes the rule-set clash between us and Europe: they still see terrorism as the purview of the courts and cops, we see it increasingly in terms of the military and intelligence. Weíre talking two different games, in the end. In the Core (beyond which Europe, in its strategic near-sightedness, cannot peer) fighting terrorists is all about cops and courts, but inside the Hobbesian Gap, it will be more about the military and intelligence. The Super Bowl for terrorists may well lie within Iraq right now, but they will continue to seek to divide and conquer us through attacks into the Core, focusing on elections held inside our most wobbly allies in Europe and the Greek Olympics in coming months. Two worlds, two wars, two rule sets, and a need for language and terms that distinguish each from the other.
The second article speaks to the hazy ground between the military and paid contractors. When these guys are involved in bad stuff, do we call it ìcrimesî in the legal sense or ìdereliction of dutyî in the military sense? Tough calls, but ones that indicate the need for what I describe as the Sys Admin force that encompasses all aspects of the peacekeeping mission in ways that our Leviathan-heavy U.S. military is clearly uncomfortable oróin certain key instancesósimply far too under-staffed and under-equipped to handle on their own.
Reader Comments