TK,

That’s an interesting point of view, and the author is quite right about some things, i.e. we are under attack. But, at war? Really? With who?

But first, let’s back up. Yes, the U.S. Embassy in Iran should have been regarded as sovereign turf while diplomatic relations were in effect. Unfortunately, diplomatic relations were suspended before the U.S. was officially aware of it. That seems to be how it often happens. Nonetheless Captain Ouimette writes as though the attack by Iranian students on the U.S. Embassy was unprovoked. I believe that’s called “telling part of the story.” And leaving out a lot of important information. A more complete accounting would include the information that it was the U.S. government (via the CIA) that deposed Iran’s elected leader in the 1950s and installed the Shah, who was friendlier to U.S. and British oil companies. The Shah maintained his authority in Iran by killing and torturing all his opponents. (Hey, doesn’t this remind you of another tyrant who ruled Iraq until last year?) Oppression was working pretty well for him up until 1979. If Captain Ouimette had been in the Iranian military from about 1955 to 1979, he would have served the Shah, jailing, torturing, and killing opponents on his behalf. Oh, and those opponents wanted things like democracy, freedom, and spending Iranian oil revenues on behalf of all of Iran, rather than just the Shah’s family. I’m not defending the actions of the attackers, but trying to expand the field of information, which suggests that the U.S., through its prior behavior, may have set us up for such an eventuality. Oppressed people eventually try to determine their own destiny, even when the U.S. is the sponsor of that oppression (I could include references here about Cuba, Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, etc.).

The crux of the Captain’s speech is about terrorist acts being acts of war. This could be about misunderstanding definitions or other disagreement, I’m not sure. My understanding is that nations make war, and individuals commit crime. The reason the U.S. has treated most terrorist acts as crimes is because they were committed by individuals, even as members of organizations in some cases. But individuals, nonetheless, and not on behalf of any nation’s government. If any of the above acts had been on the behalf of any government, then it would have been an act of war, and we would be on the reasonable and ethical high ground by responding with a declaration of war on the sponsoring country. However, as far as I know, none of the acts cited in Ouimette’s speech were attributable to any nation. Therefore, they were terrorist acts that were classified and treated as “crimes.”

Isn’t this what makes the “war on terrorism” so convoluted? Just who is the enemy? With no nation claiming sponsorship of any of the terrorist acts, and with the intelligence information we have - if that’s of any value - the closest we have are some organizations sponsoring terrorist acts. How can we declare war on terrorism when the legitimate target, as best we understand it, is a bunch of loose-knit organizations and “cells” in various countries (nations that don’t sponsor them or really want them in their countries, since they apparently are located in the U.S., Canada, Germany, Spain, Pakistan, etc.) comprised of numerous individuals whose identities are mostly unknown to us. Geez, it does look like a situation that fits the traditional definition of criminal actions. So is the most appropriate response a crime-fighting response or a declaration of war? If the latter, then on whom would the declaration of war be made?

The speech is long on buzz words (“pay the price,” “make the sacrifice”), but short on definitive, rational, intelligent action. The Captain had such a good story going, but then he fell flat in his conclusion. What does he really mean? What is the action he refers to? What does this military action look like? No doubt we’ve got the best military and best killing machine in the world. We can use it to defend the U.S. We can use it to advocate or protect our interests, however we define them, such as the present action in Iraq. We can use it to take over a significant part of the world. But the good Captain fails to make clear how we can use our military to protect the U.S. from acts of terror, which seemed to be the point to which he was leading, unless I’ve made a critical misunderstanding. On the whole, the speech was rousing, but I’d still give him a “D” grade for failing to close the loop on reasoning and critical thinking.

Since you posted the speech, TK, and since you’re better read than I (recalling the several thousand books and articles you mentioned in another thread), tell me, what does the war on terror look like? What nation(s) do we declare war on? And why? (Since no nations have come forward as sponsors of terrorist acts against the U.S., and we still have no hard evidence - like that which would stand up in, say, a U.S. court - that any nation is sponsoring or supporting terrorist acts against us. And how do we win this war? Please provide the cause and effect link, like the Captain failed to do, that logically explains how our act of war will prevent a subsequent and future act of terror against the U.S.

One more thing. I've read a couple of times now that U.S. inflicted, non-combatant deaths in Iraq range between 9,000 and 10,000. That's at least 3 times the number of Americans killed on 9/11. In your opinion, how many innocent people in other countries should die while we avenge terrorism against the U.S.? I've indicated several times that I'm all for hunting down terrorists and killing them. That seems faultless and almost high-minded to me. But killing thousands of innocent non-combatants and passing it off as necessary collateral damage lowers us to nearly the same ethical level as the terrorists. Don't you think? And if not, why not?

Sincerely,

Salmo g.