A DIFFERENT KIND OF WAR
The country has been repeatedly told and
reminded that we are at war. From the
highest political offices to the pulpits, the phrase is often repeated – make
no mistake about it, we are at war. The
repetitious use of the phrase belies an underlying simplistic conception of its
meaning.
We are at war with terrorism. The phrase itself shows how this war is
different from conventional war – one carried out by legitimate authority
(states) and executed by warriors under the governing influence of that
authority. Confusion is added when we
also maintain that the forces we are at war with are not warriors, but rather
criminals. This is a different kind of
war indeed. Add to the confusion our
treatment of these criminals as both criminals and warriors by invoking the
criminal or military justice system to our convenience as the situation
dictates and affords. Yes, this is a
different kind of war, with its rules being worked out even as we are involved
in it.
Our objective in this war is to root out
terrorists wherever they may be found.
It is a war that stretches around the globe, involving a large, varied
and variable array of collaborations and coalitions. It is truly worldwide in scope, but is it
truly war?
War is, in
its essence, the use of force to compel another to ones will. Its character can take many forms. Military
on military conflict under the direction and governing influence of nation
states is only one form. As,
sociologically speaking, war is a legitimate activity, it is important what we
legitimize by our actions and our justifications of those actions. Although it is certainly not our intent to
legitimize terrorism, both our actions and our expressions in our current “war
on terrorism” have a very real potential to do so. What is more important, however, is to truly
define the struggle we are in, as that is the first step in determining how
best to achieve the ends we seek, and if war, however characterized, is best
suited to achieve these ends.
The following is an illustration of the
problem. A recurring and difficult
challenge in this on-going war is the identification and prosecution of
targets. We have been attacked by an
un-seen enemy, who claims no allegiance to a geographical, political
entity. How do we show progress in this
war? Traditional measures fail us. There is no country specifically linked to
the terrorist acts, although we would desperately like to find a link. There is no territory to capture. There are no armies arrayed against us to
destroy. There is no clearly defined
front or rear in this war. What
scorecard do we keep so that we can measure success and prove to an anxious
public that we are, in fact, winning?
Showing a list of captured or killed terrorists proves little in this
war unless we can show and explain why these individuals were the center of
gravity of the opposing forces.
As uncomfortable as it may be to accept,
the struggle that we have entered is an ideological struggle. It is a “Faith Based Initiative” writ large,
and one in which traditional measures of success in war have
little meaning. It is a very individual,
personal ideology – faith. There can be
little doubt that those who seek to destroy us are embarked on a crusade, with
all of the volatility which that expression carries in terms of that historical
event of the same name. And why should
this surprise us? History, if it teaches
us anything, teaches us this – that there is nothing new under the sun. It is cyclical. There will never be either a war to end all
wars nor a final sociological structure that will limit the character which war
will take. History and the character of
war does, and will continue, to evolve, transform and
repeat.
If we can accept that this struggle is, in
essence, ideological, then perhaps we can begin to appreciate and accept that
war, whatever its character du jour, is not the most
appropriate means to prosecute it, because force does not get at the critical
vulnerabilities. In fact, the critical
vulnerabilities in an ideological struggle dictate a radically different
targeting process.
The basics of targeting are fairly simple,
although its execution is not. In
essence, targeting involves the following: location; identification; the
matching of available weapons and means of delivery to the target and desired
effect on the target; prosecution; impact analysis (BDA in military
vernacular). Transposing this process
onto an ideological struggle presents unique, although not insurmountable,
challenges.
In its largest sense, what is being
targeted, the critical vulnerability, is a collective
identity and shared sense of destiny of a group of people, the cohesion of
which is maintained by ideology rather than political, geographic, or economic
dependencies. Prosecuting this target type
requires a radical rethinking of what each element of the targeting process
really means. Location becomes
identification and definition of the collective identity as well as how that
collective identity is maintained and broadened. What is the cultural medium in which they
operate? What are the cultural,
societal, and individual needs which they seek to meet? How do they communicate their message to
maintain that cohesion and broaden their base?
Identification becomes more a measure of commitment – identification of
those already committed to both the ideology and the use of violence in its
furtherance, and identification of those inclined or disposed to be swayed to
its cause. Matching the weapons and
delivery means to the target and desired effect in such a conflict shows just
how different this targeting process is.
Traditional targeting seeks three principle effects on target –
destruction, neutralization, and harassment.
Targeting in an ideological conflict seeks radically different effects:
dissuasion, conviction, and conversion.
Likewise, the weapons are radically different, these effects requiring
that a new faith, new hope, and a commitment to the law of love replace a
misplaced faith, false hope, and hate.
It is misplaced, not because the object of faith is unworthy, but rather
because the substance of what they hope for and the evidence they seek of what
is unseen are completely unworthy of any conception of the eternal, who has no
design on temporal, political thrones but rather the thrones of our hearts, and
has no desire to compel by force, but rather seeks to win our hearts through
love.
Such weapons, as well, require drastically
different means of delivery. They
require one on one, and one by one relationship building, as well as focused
efforts to meet the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual needs of the
“target.” This is indeed a different
kind of war, if it can be called war at all.
It is a spiritual war (not to be confused with a religious war), and, as
such, is the only conception of war that is different, by nature, from any of
our temporal conceptions. Neither
compelence nor force are part of its description and, in this war, hate and
violence are not combated with fire and steel.
That type of war has its place and is, unfortunately, necessitated by
the human condition. Those who are
committed to the use of violence and hatred to compel others to their will must
be dealt with, and the “rules of war,” however incongruous the elements of that
statement seem, must be followed and enforced if we are to limit wars
destructive capacity and continue to exist.
Of much greater importance in this struggle, however, is the commitment
of this nation to tolerance and our willingness to sacrifice to meet the needs
of others, both at home and abroad, so that this message of hate has no ground
in which to root and spring up. Where
there is disease, hunger, poverty, and despair, we must be active and involved
in bringing healing, a helping hand, and hope.
This is the message and spirit of
The critical difference in our current
conflict is its ideological and spiritual basis. Unless we resolve and accept this, we will be
forever stymied by our lack of ability in achieving what we seek, for it is
impossible to root out an ideology with fire and steel. The use of terror and violence is not the
root of the problem. That is more an
evolution in the character of war and societal rules for its conduct, and is a
problem all its own. The real struggle,
which plays to