What is an act of war…precisely?
It used to be that when a standing army (or a state-sponsored group) crossed into someone else’s sovereign territory and killed their inhabitants, that was interpreted as an act of war. However, now an illegal transgression of a border, or the pre-emptive killings of another country’s people, and not apologizing , somehow got ratified as behavior that doesn’t count as a declaration of war…somehow. Just a few recent examples to prove the point, all these acts allegedly happened in the last few months, and none have been defined as an aggressor act of war:
- US helicopters land in Syria, kill suspected terrorists and leave
- Israel bombs a convoy in Sudan killing twenty or more
- US drones patrol and kill fighters in Pakistani sovereign territories at least with weekly frequency
- Israel allegedly destroys an Iranian ship at sea
- Pakistan intelligence sponsored terrorists attack Mumbai (some commentators allege)
- Israel uses phosphorous and depleted uranium on civilians while refusing them refugee egress
- US overthrows the Iraqi government and occupies the country
The list could become long if I continued , but none of these were termed declarations of war. They were given more non-confrontational terms, such as skirmish, pre-emptive strike, a national security requirement and similar. So why weren’t they termed acts of war? It appears as if international legal definition suddenly became contextual. It appears as if morality is now defined by whoever has military dominance. Why is it not war when a government, any government, decides that their security needs are so compelling that the rights of another nation are subservient? If the Pakistani government secretly agrees, but publicly says stop, the drone attacks continue without anyone seemingly expecting Pakistani militants to be plotting acts of revenge? Why did no one in Washington or the main stream media really question why US troops (or contractors if you prefer) were allowed to mount an operation within Syrian airspace and on Syrian soil? The US has long been estranged diplomatically from Syria, so this act should have certainly been defined as an intent of war . Perhaps war has now become self-defined. It is whatever I decide it is, regardless of what you think or traditional definitions claim. Maybe we can avoid terming such acts as war through the use of a technicality, by saying if Congress has not declared war, then the nation is not at war according to the Constitution. So unless I ask Congress, I can happily tell you we’re not at war unless I say so.
This state of affairs implies to me that our moral compass has lost its true North. It is as if suddenly whatever we want is more important than what you want, regardless of whether you own it or not. This is not a democracy in action. It is not even really a meritocracy at work – it is nothing more than the act of a playground bully who will have their way as they are bigger, stronger or more reckless than anyone else. It is as if sovereign need suddenly outranks moral and legal code. Looked at in a rational light, this is not a value set that anybody of a democratic mind-set would support. Even using the old Testament’s angry and revengeful God, he only stipulates an eye for an eye. ‘It takes a village’ was meant as a mantra of global community, not a threat of revenge.
We are, it appears, being led to a tacit acceptance of a moral corruption, that an invasion and an assassination, are not an act of war. There is something of Shakespearean world view at play here by our leaders:
Horatio:
He waxes desperate with imagination.Marcellus:
Let’s follow. ‘Tis not fit thus to obey him.Horatio:
Have after. To what issue will this come?Marcellus:
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.Horatio:
Heaven will direct it.Marcellus:
Nay, let’s follow him. [Exeunt.]
There is something rotten at the heart of our governance, but we follow the moral duplicity regardless. There is a collective social blindness involved in accepting that a pre-emptive strike by our side is morally acceptable, but for the other side, inexcusable. On this issue, our silence defies our more normal morality. We will read of the US drone attacks on Pakistan, and consider it a valid policy. We will debate the tactics but not the moral validity of an illegal Israel strike at Iran to delay their legal nuclear program. However, if I said I am fearful of my neighbor across the street, he covets my green fertile lawn, and I plan to shoot him first, I would be in prison or an asylum, post haste. However a similar action at a sovereign level would see us waving our tiny national flags as an expression of pride. Somehow, making the act collective not singular changes the morality by which the act is judged.
Strategists like Tom Barnett would tell us that the interconnectedness of our global economy prohibits the pursuit of symmetrical war ( I simplify his insightful thinking for effect) so that these incursions and strikes become acceptable, perhaps even preferable, to war. Regardless, it does raise the question, what would a country actually have to do before it was openly acknowledged they had declared war? We have seen extreme acts by sovereign nations of late. We have seen countries seize lands of others, remove their government, control their resources, silence opposition, define a new legal code, seal the borders, use prohibited weaponry in the prosecution of their agenda, but none of this is deemed to be a declaration of war. All of these are merely guaranteeing national security, but whose nation? This is a slippery road to immoral dictatorship. This is an aberration of moral code. This is sovereign savagery, but not of the ilk of Hobbes noble savage. However, I would prefer that the definition of war remains as it was.
WAR – A contention by force; or the art of paralyzing the forces of an enemy.
It seems to me, then by this definition, that many countries are at war – here, there, and everywhere. It just appears that everyone is keeping the secret, and not telling anybody else.
Sphere: Related Content
