I am finding some disconnect between the definition the writer has offered of terrorism according to the DoD, and the conclusions they draw from it... In the 5th paragraph, the definition of terrorism given is: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” They then go on to claim that this means that people in uniform (ie... military) cannot commit acts of violence. This isn't what it said at all? It says nothing about the strict identity of those committing the acts... it says the identity of the VICTIM(S) as non-combatants. So, I have a problem with his claims from the start, but...
Wearing a uniform doesn't make you immune to the law, to ethics, and if anything it must force you to hold a higher standard as they eyes of society are upon you at any given moment.
Of course, I may be biased as a member of ROTC... but I simply don't agree that the use of the phrase terrorism has in any way served the US exclusively to sway public opinion and I certainly don't think we use it to distract from "our own acts of terror" as the article claims...
War is hell, and I understand that our military has not been flawless in the execution of our mission to destroy terrorist groups: especially when it comes to accidental civilian casualties. But, I can say that risk is always weighed in operations and the officers that have inflicted unnecessary damage to civilian life do not stay employed in the military for long - and probably live with that guilt and regret the rest of their lives... It's not something that is taken lightly, ever.
What we have to ask to this is: is the group we are seeking to eliminate going to harm more innocent lives than the ones at risk during the attempts to destroy the group? Roughly 3,000 were killed immediately in the Sept. 11 attacks ALONE, and slightly over double that number were reported Iraqi civilian deaths around the peak of the war. The truth is, the number of recorded civilian deaths is probably an underestimate... many go unreported and unrecorded by the media, which is undoubtedly biased as well.
It is a real problem and one that can't be ignored, especially since the threat of extremist groups does not seem to be going away any time soon.
What I like most about this article is the fact that it calls out the need for people to realize the biases and effects of language in the news we get on our efforts in the Middle East. There are many pre-conceived notions and assumptions that are rampant in the general American population and the vast majority are simply not true when it comes to the reality of the threats. I agree with his reminder that feeding into the fear and misunderstandings around terrorist groups only empower them further, and that reacting to this fear with unrestrained violence and flawed reason is not the proper course of action.
I am finding some disconnect between the definition the writer has offered of terrorism according to the DoD, and the conclusions they draw from it... In the 5th paragraph, the definition of terrorism given is: “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by sub-national groups or clandestine agents.” They then go on to claim that this means that people in uniform (ie... military) cannot commit acts of violence. This isn't what it said at all? It says nothing about the strict identity of those committing the acts... it says the identity of the VICTIM(S) as non-combatants. So, I have a problem with his claims from the start, but...
ReplyDeleteWearing a uniform doesn't make you immune to the law, to ethics, and if anything it must force you to hold a higher standard as they eyes of society are upon you at any given moment.
Of course, I may be biased as a member of ROTC... but I simply don't agree that the use of the phrase terrorism has in any way served the US exclusively to sway public opinion and I certainly don't think we use it to distract from "our own acts of terror" as the article claims...
War is hell, and I understand that our military has not been flawless in the execution of our mission to destroy terrorist groups: especially when it comes to accidental civilian casualties. But, I can say that risk is always weighed in operations and the officers that have inflicted unnecessary damage to civilian life do not stay employed in the military for long - and probably live with that guilt and regret the rest of their lives... It's not something that is taken lightly, ever.
What we have to ask to this is: is the group we are seeking to eliminate going to harm more innocent lives than the ones at risk during the attempts to destroy the group? Roughly 3,000 were killed immediately in the Sept. 11 attacks ALONE, and slightly over double that number were reported Iraqi civilian deaths around the peak of the war. The truth is, the number of recorded civilian deaths is probably an underestimate... many go unreported and unrecorded by the media, which is undoubtedly biased as well.
It is a real problem and one that can't be ignored, especially since the threat of extremist groups does not seem to be going away any time soon.
What I like most about this article is the fact that it calls out the need for people to realize the biases and effects of language in the news we get on our efforts in the Middle East. There are many pre-conceived notions and assumptions that are rampant in the general American population and the vast majority are simply not true when it comes to the reality of the threats. I agree with his reminder that feeding into the fear and misunderstandings around terrorist groups only empower them further, and that reacting to this fear with unrestrained violence and flawed reason is not the proper course of action.