WAR Vs war

I don't know about you, but I've been bugged for about 8 years now by a misconception perpetuated by the press: it's that we are at WAR.

I know. I know. There's shooting and bombing and all sorts of warlike things happening, but is it a WAR? What is a WAR, anyway? If two groups face off and bombard each other with weaponry, is that enough to call it a WAR? (Or a healthcare reform town meeting?)

Actually, for fighting to become a WAR, I believe the Congress has to declare it one. And that's never happened. The sad vote to allow President Bush to use military action didn't quality as a declaration of WAR, and as far as I can tell no one has actually declared WAR on the US either.

Calling what's happening over in Iraq and Afghanistan not a WAR, must seem utterly nonsensical to those kids fighting and dying in those places. In the midst of combat there would be nothing to help you tell the difference. And it wouldn't really matter anyway - surviving would require the same actions, real WAR or not.

But back here in the US, it makes a difference, legally at least. George Bush knew it. That's why he ignored the Geneva conventions - only countries in a declared war are bound by them. The only problem was he forgot that it's either one or the other - declared WAR and be bound by the Geneva conventions, or undeclared war-like conflict and bound by our national (and some international) civil laws. You can't have it both ways, although Bush believed he could.

We started back in 2001 fighting against Al-Qaeda, a terroristic, extremist, fanatically religious group encompassing minions from several nations. Hard to declare WAR on that. Then we added the Taliban - a theocratic bunch of ruffians that ruled Afghanistan and harbored Al-Qaeda. Them we could declare WAR against, but didn't. Then came Iraq, ruled by a non-religious former ally who also happened to be a despot and once threatened George Bush the Elder's life. Another easy target for a declared WAR, but again we declined.

Even though WAR was not declared against Iraq or Afghanistan, the fighting there took on the traditional shape of WAR, but legally wasn't. Which lead to all sorts of confusion within the Bush administration and plenty of questionable decisions. Fighting Al Qaeda, was not a WAR and not traditional in any sense. Which is probably why the Bush folks dropped emphasis on finding Bin Laden and defeating Al-Qaeda from almost the moment the first bombs fell in Iraq - although we were reminded of them from time to time, when expedient.

When Attorney General Holder was deciding what to do with the 9/11 perps, some aspect of this history must have been in mind. If those murderers were working for an enemy in a declared WAR, then the rules are clear - try them either in a US military court or internationally for WAR crimes. If they are part of a diffuse terrorist organization against which we have not declared WAR then US civilian courts - AND the courts of all countries whose citizens were killed on 9/11 (and that is many), are appropriate.

Which is what Holder and President Obama have decided.