Adjusting the Definition of Civilian and Combatant

Watching the “civilian” casualty rates being reported by the news media in various war zones in the world (Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan), I’m reminded of an excellent posting by Ed Morrissey titled, “Americans love Pepsi-Cola, we love death” over at Hotair.com.

If we want to dismantle the networks that support and create terrorism, then we have to adjust our definitions of civilian and combatant accordingly. That change has been forced on us by the terrorists, which is one of the reasons we cannot abide their presence: they want real non-combatants to die in droves in order to undermine our morale, precisely because we want to remain in a World War II mentality.

Does that mean we should reject rationalism and our humanity and kill everything in sight? Of course not. I don’t want my son to think that we have to wipe out all Muslims any more than I want Muslims to think that they have to wipe out all Christians and Jews. We do have to understand, however, that strikes on terrorists who bury themselves among civilians will create the collateral damage terrorists fully intend as a demoralizing influence on our will to resist them.

In short, we need to understand this war as something other than Hitler rolling into Poland or Japan bombing a naval base in Pearl Harbor. We face a network of radical theological nihilists who want to destroy civilization by using our civilized impulses against us. We have to maintain those impulses but not shy away from doing the necessary work of ridding the globe of this new and dangerous cancer, militarily, politically, and financially. That will require the West to understand that the collateral deaths are the fault of the terrorists, whether that is in Afghanistan, Gaza, Iraq, or anywhere else where terrorists launch attacks in the midst of civilians.