War Vs Police

Decisions, decisions They often have to be made by various of our leaders. Sometimes they are right on but unfortunately some are way off the mark. Decisions that are not well thought out can be very troubling if not down right dangerous. About every generation, leaders of a country decide to enter an armed conflict such as the Civil War, the Spanish American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and most recently the War on Terror. A conflict like "war" usually pits nation against nation or allies against allies. This implies that a nation's welfare is at stake and that the nation's population is concerned enough, so that they are willing to fight for their nation's sovereignty - to go to war. This classifies those that that are willing to fight for their country are "Warriors." Not every conflict that is termed "War" means that a nation's sovereignty is at stake. Take for example the most recent conflict that is termed "War on Terror." President H. W. Bush used this term following the aircraft attack on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D. C. The problem with a statement such as that implies that "Warriors" are inflicting terror on various sovereign entities. This kind of terminology is, unintentionally, giving a "Terrorist" too much credit ' Terrorist are not "Warriors." They are, for the most part, murderers. They are common "thugs" or "criminals" and should be treated as such. Rather than calling criminals "Warriors," as the term "War on Terror" implies, shouldn't we be treating the terrorist as criminals and refer to the conflict as to what it should really be, a "Police Action?" For practicle purposes in this book, the author focuses on "Islamic Terrorist" since they are recently the most active. That is not to say that we are willing to ignore the many, many organizations and individuals who use terror as a weapon to foster their ideas about politics, religion or crazy ideas.