War is Defined by the Aggressor

A commenter on Neo-neocon’s post about granting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed a trial in Manhattan broadens the view:

There are no war crimes; there is only war, which has historically been insular and self-defined, and has no external limits that could rule out something called “crime.” There is no justice in war, there is only the battle. Scruples in war are an indulgence, a luxury, a momentary distraction from the objective. Sometimes these scruples are cost-free, but their observation is a risk. The victors extract vengeance from the defeated, and the process is not subject to rational, disinterested, peace-time judicial review. The standards are different because they should be; the difference is inherent to the endeavor. We need to face it: We are in war. The enemy is waging war against us, whether we deign to recognize it or not.

KSM (and Hasan) do not see themselves as terrorists. Terror is only a tool they use in prosecuting jihad. They would fight more conventional battles, too, if they stood a chance. Fumbling about for the proper classification of those who dedicate their lives to destroying the United States is a luxury we can enjoy due to our vastly superior firepower.

War is not made by consensus. It takes only one warrior to make war. If the target prefers not to acknowldege the attacker’s mindset, the target still dies. And the warrior moves toward his objective.

The current President is proving himself foolish to the point of treason. I am temporarily past the point of offering criticism. As I’ve read a few times this week, the Failed Obama Administration™ is impossible to caricature. Just be sure you have your helmet on to increase the chance of surviving the next attack.