I just returned home from a funeral last night, and am running off to give an ethics presentation, but saw this and cannot resist pointing it out.
From the Hill:
The United States is at war with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS or ISIL), the White House and Pentagon said Friday, a day after Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly declined to use that phrase.
“In the same way that we are at war with Al Qaeda and its affiliates around the globe, we are at war with ISIL,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at the White House.
Pentagon spokesman John Kirby echoed that sentiment, telling reporters that while the effort was “not the Iraq war,” they should “make no mistake, we know we are at war with ISIL.”
Earnest said that it was important to distinguish that this was “different than the strategies previously pursued in Iraq” and that by “we,” he meant a “broader international coalition” that was fighting the terrorist organization. Earnest also said that the strategy for handling ISIS was “consistent with the counterterrorism strategy we’ve pursued in cases all around the world.”
“This president, as is expected of American presidents, is stepping up to lead an international coalition to confront that threat and to deny ISIL a safe haven. And ultimately, this international coalition will be responsible for degrading and destroying ISIL,” he said.
In a series of interviews on Thursday, Secretary of State John Kerry repeatedly rejected characterizations of the U.S. efforts against ISIS as war.
Kerry said the administration’s plan to combat ISIS includes “many different things that one doesn’t think of normally in context of war” during an interview with CNN.
…
In a separate interview with CBS News, Kerry also rejected the word “war” to describe the U.S. effort and encouraged the public not to “get into war fever” over the conflict.
“We’re engaged in a major counterterrorism operation, and it’s going to be a long-term counterterrorism operation. I think war is the wrong terminology and analogy but the fact is that we are engaged in a very significant global effort to curb terrorist activity,” Kerry told the network.
“I don’t think people need to get into war fever on this. I think they have to view it as a heightened level of counter terrorist activity … but it’s not dissimilar similar to what we’ve been doing the last few years with al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in Yemen and elsewhere,” Kerry said.
I see! So we’re at war, though you shouldn’t call it a war, though it is like the war we officially said was not a war, and although it is in Iraq, it’s not an Iraq war, and it really isn’t going to be like what you typically expect in a war, so we shouldn’t go into war fever. It’s more like what we’ve been doing in some places where we haven’t been at war, like Pakistan.
How can anyone trust these people?
Ethics Alarms 
If it is a war, not like the Iraq war but more like our war on drugs but instead focusing on anti-terrorism then to me it is a law enforcement issue. If we are not in a state of war in the traditional sense then it seems to me that those that those we drop bombs on are being murdered by the US law enforcement.
If this is not a war between political factions as we understand war (Websters dictionary), or in the strict legal sense of the word, and we are engaged in law enforcement operations is it permissible to impose a death sentence on terrorists without due process to bring them to justice on foreign soil? If so, then it stands to reason that it becomes equally permissible for the government to attack and an mete out such justice on U.S. citizens in the homeland if they are suspected of being sympathetic to, or actual terrorists.
Such vague language puts at risk every American in uniform who participates in the killing of any suspected terrorist or civilian, irrespective of any order issued by a commanding officer, to the charge of murder by the international court in the Hague.
The language employed by Kerry, Earnest, and the President to create the perception that this is not a real war in the legal sense of war for mere political purposes puts U.S service men and women’s lives at risk for prosecution for the acts they are ordered to perform. This is unconscionable.
For those that don’t want to call this a war because ISIS or ISEL is not a defined country by existing boundaries then let me remind you of the two major wars on our soil that took place in the years 1775-1789 and 1861-1865. There was no official United States prior to 1776 nor a Confederate States prior to 1861.
I ask this question. Does any member of our armed forces owe a duty to carry out the orders of the Commander in Chief when he orders them to kill people with whom we are not engaged in war by the Commander in Chief’s own definition of war. If I were in the service, I would not. This is war and it should be unequivocally defined as such.
Add to that, for some reason, we stopped fighting wars to WIN in Korea. Apparently, our Armed Forces are no longer to put out an all-out effort, but rather make the enemy uncomfortable enough that we will negotiate. Got news, probably not big to most people…if the enemy has no army left, he can no longer fight.
Dragin
Absolutely right. As for fighting to win I agree we have not done so since WW2. I made a long winded point to that effect as to why wars since then have been so protracted.
It therefore makes sense that if the US public loses interest in fighting to win after a few months when they begin to see that effects of the carnage, then our strategy should be to increase the carnage on the enemy exponentially at first so that we don’t give the enemy the propaganda value associated with images of limited destruction from precise airstrikes that do little to cause the enemy to sue for peace.
For those that think that our acts (bombing) create more terrorists. They are only correct if we allow those indoctrinated and thus predisposed to hate the U.S. to survive. We firebombed Dresden and Tokyo to such a degree but that action did not create a bunch of German and Japanese terrorists.
To be fair, Chris, the fire bombings did not end the war, either. It took the BIG firebomb to convince the foreign minister to ask the emperor’s advice.
Political, no-win “non-wars” (like the infamous “police action” term for the Korean War) have been the bane of the American Armed Forces since World War II. As someone once said, “How can you ask soldiers to die in a police action?”. When the bullets start to fly and organized bodies of armed men are coming for you, it’s a war. And if it’s a war, then the government should declare it to be so and let the military handle it as such, bearing in mind MacArthur’s Maxim- “There is no substitute for victory”.
Forget this “boots on the ground” nonsense along with “defining victory” and an “exit strategy”. Wars are won when your enemy is beaten to his knees and surrenders. Either you prosecute a war fully or you don’t fight it at all. And don’t let the politicians dictate its course. When the war is won, THEN the diplomats (better than Kerry, one might hope) step in and try to win the peace.
The war against ISIS has to be fought; either by an alliance of concerned nations or by America alone, if necessary. No savagery on this level can remain uncountered. But all this requires, at its basis, an American military of high morale that is not lacking in the necessary materiel, along with competent leadership and trustworthy political backing. Do we have this anymore after nearly six years of Obama’s depredations? What allies will we have that have enough confidence in America’s current state of leadership that they will send troops to fight alongside of ours? Britain and Germany quickly rejected that notion… and who can blame them?
This “quasi-war” against ISIS is already shaping up to be another embarrassing debacle that will likely accomplish little other than to get some find young soldiers killed just so Obama can attempt to prove he is a capable world leader. He is not. Nor will he ever be, as he lacks the ability, character and background to be anything but what he’s always been- a jumped up ward heeler from the south side of Chicago. World leaders already know this. The enemy knows this. So do American fighting men.
I think this addition appropriate to Chris, Dragin and SMP’s comments:
“GENTLEMEN: I have your letter of the 11th, in the nature of a petition to revoke my orders removing all the inhabitants from Atlanta. I have read it carefully, and give full credit to your statements of the distress that will be occasioned by it, and yet shall not revoke my orders, simply because my orders are not designed to meet the humanities of the case, but to prepare for the future struggles in which millions of good people outside of Atlanta have a deep interest. We must have peace, not only at Atlanta but in all America. To secure this we must stop the war that now desolates our once happy and favored country. To stop war we must defeat the rebel armies that are arrayed against the laws and Constitution, which all must respect and obey. To defeat these armies we must prepare the way to reach them in their recesses provided with the arms and instruments which enable us to accomplish our purpose.
Now, I know the vindictive nature of our enemy, and that we may have many years of military operations from this quarter, and therefore deem it wise and prudent to prepare in time. The use of Atlanta for warlike purposes is inconsistent with its character as a home for families. There will be no manufactures, commerce, or agriculture here for the maintenance of families, and sooner or later want will compel the inhabitants to go. Why not go now, when all the arrangements are completed for the transfer, instead of waiting till the plunging shot of contending armies will renew the scenes of the past month? Of course, I do not apprehend any such thing at this moment, but you do not suppose this army will be here until the war is over. I cannot discuss this subject with you fairly, because I cannot impart to you what I propose to do, but I assert that my military plans make it necessary for the inhabitants to go away, and I can only renew my offer of services to make their exodus in any direction as easy and comfortable as possible. You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will.
War is cruelty and you cannot refine it, and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace. But you cannot have peace and a division of our country. If the United States submits to a division now it will not stop, but will go on until we reap the fate of Mexico, which is eternal war. The United States does and must assert its authority wherever it once had power. If it relaxes one bit to pressure it is gone, and I know that such is the national feeling. This feeling assumes various shapes, but always comes back to that of Union. Once admit the Union, once more acknowledge the authority of the National Government, and instead of devoting your houses and streets and roads to the dread uses of war, and this army become at once your protectors and supporters, shielding you from danger, let it come from what quarter it may. I know that a few individuals cannot resist a torrent of error and passion such as swept the South into rebellion, but you can part out so that we may know those who desire a government and those who insist on war and its desolation.
You might as well appeal against the thunder-storm as against these terrible hardships of war. They are inevitable, and the only way the people of Atlanta can hope once more to live in peace and quiet at home is to stop the war, which can alone be done by admitting that it began in error and is perpetuated in pride. We don’t want your negroes or your horses or your houses or your lands or anything you have, but we do want, and will have, a just obedience to the laws of the United States. That we will have, and if it involves the destruction of your improvements we cannot help it. You have heretofore read public sentiment in your newspapers that live by falsehood and excitement, and the quicker you seek for truth in other quarters the better for you.
I repeat then that by the original compact of government the United States had certain rights in Georgia, which have never been relinquished and never will be; that the South began war by seizing forts, arsenals, mints, custom-houses, &c., long before Mr. Lincoln was installed and before the South had one jot or tittle of provocation. I myself have seen in Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi hundreds and thousands of women and children fleeing from your armies and desperadoes, hungry and with bleeding feet. In Memphis, Vicksburg, and Mississippi we fed thousands upon thousands of the families of rebel soldiers left on our hands and whom we could not see starve. Now that war comes home to you, you feel very different. You deprecate its horrors, but did not feel them when you sent car-loads of soldiers and ammunition and molded shells and shot to carry war into Kentucky and Tennessee, and desolate the homes of hundreds and thousands of good people who only asked to live in peace at their old homes and under the Government of their inheritance. But these comparisons are idle. I want peace, and believe it can now only be reached through union and war, and I will ever conduct war with a view to perfect an early success.
But, my dear sirs, when that peace does come, you may call on me for anything. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter. Now you must go, and take with you the old and feeble, feed and nurse them and build for them in more quiet places proper habitations to shield them against the weather until the mad passions of men cool down and allow the Union and peace once more to settle over your old homes at Atlanta.
Yours, in haste,
W. T. SHERMAN,
Major-General, Commanding.”
Why don’t we say things like this anymore? I began highlighting all the well worded and nearly perfect phrases and found myself highlighting EVERY sentence. Nothing was wasted and everything had individual value. So I highlighted what I thought was key, but it was all key.
Thank you Tex. I had read excerpts from that letter previously but had never had the heart to read the whole thing. William Tecumseh was, not surprisingly, not one of my favorite Generals, but neither was Curtis Lemay. That said, both did a distasteful job because it HAD to be done. If the South had been allowed bases for a guerilla war after Lee’s surrender, it is possible we would still be fighting it.
Gotta get a keyboard that spells better. CURTIS Lemay.
Wasn’t Curtin Lemay on “Saturday Night Live”?
Yeah, Jane Curtin Lemay. Remember her well. Makes a pretty good medical examiner, too.