Recently in Afganistan US forces uncovered "terrorist" munitions in a school. In the operation to subdue the "insurgency" and "militants" as they were referred to in the article, the army was able to hit multiple targets that provided these groups with strategic positions against US armed forces. The obvious problem I find with the coverage is the semantics. These groups are in my opinion insurgents, or guerilla fighters because they are not targeting non-combatants. Calling this discovery "terrorist munitions" doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Furthermore, generally speaking, terrorists would most likely not use conventional munitions or conventional strategies of engagement. Terrorists inflict more damage and are more successful when their targets and methods remain under the radar, example being using box-cutters to hijack planes or car bombs in market places. I am of the belief that the "War on Terror" is a misnomer given that much of the US resources to fight terrorism are being used to combat insurgency and guerilla efforts that are against US national interest. The name needs to be changed to something more grandiose like the "War on any non-state with an anti-american interest" rather than just "War on Terror."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=48637
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
BRENT MANGUM:
The people that the U.S. targeted in these strikes are the same people that would use those "terrorist munitions" in cars and in markets and boxcutters in airplanes if they had the opportunity. They reason why they presently target military personnel is becasue they are the most available and closest victims. But, if you remember, the Afghan Taliban (those who are attacking U.S. forces are probably associated or simpathetic with the Taliban or Al-Q) provided Al-Q with needed training grounds - and Al-Q is the terrorist organization responsible for 9-11. No one would argue that Al-Q is just an American hating organization.
Post a Comment