The thought of funding terrorists probably makes your pulse quicken, the veins in your neck start to bulge, and there’s likely a few beads of sweat forming above your brow. Perhaps there’s even an icy chill that makes the hairs on the back of your neck stand on end.I know that this might be your reaction because that is exactly how I felt when I found a similar strategy from ten years ago that actually helped the cause.

Fund Terrorism?! I thought. That’s insane!

Maybe it is. But it’s worked in the past. Let’s first of all understand that the best ideas for stopping ISIS are really just the least bad ideas and in that case, I would contend that there are no stupid ones. We’ve found ourselves nose-to-nose with one of the most horrible manifestations of terrorists the world has ever seen and the best solution may be the craziest.

In 2005, after hundreds of American fighters had been mowed down in the dark nether regions of Fallujah, General David Petraeus did something controversial but effective: he put over 100,000 Sunni militants on the payroll. He also negotiated peace talks between Sunni tribes. From 2007 to 2008, American losses dropped 66%. Whether he personally liked them or not, he knew the Sunnis had the influence to slow the fighting down and wake up the locals to push back against terrorist regimes which ultimately led to less American losses. What would become known as the ‘Anbar Awakening’ would ultimately fuel the success of the 2007 ‘New Way Forward’ strategy, otherwise referred to as the infamous ‘Surge.’

There was a learning, though. If nothing else, in combat situations the United States has an unparalleled ability to bring the boom. However, what we struggled with during previous engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan is successfully taking a stand in the most undesirable terrain known to man against a contingency of stop-at-nothing religious fanatics. For those that don’t know, they subscribe to a very violent sect of Islam known as Wahabi. We learned that Wahabists were better equipped to handle urban and guerilla warfare on their own turf with unguided RPGs mounted on goats than we were with laser guided missiles and tactical assault rifles.

So why is it now that we face an even stronger threat who is an even more sophisticated and ruthless enemy than it’s predecessors are we so quick to forget that lesson? More troops, more bombs, more bloodshed? No thanks.

Now what would they do with that money? The same thing every other third world country does with the money that we give them. They agree to the terms we set and then lie to us just enough about what they’re actually doing with it to make sure the money keeps coming in. At the end of it, who cares? As long as there’s a reduction in genocide, headless journalists, and generally less discontent then I’d say it’s a win.

But the money! You might contest. What if we give them money and it doesn’t work? We’ll have to send troops anyway! What a waste…

That’s a very astute observation! I would argue at the end of it, does it matter? It’s not like we’re going to run out of money. Even if we did, we’re not likely to balance the budget by not going to war. The financial collapse of 2008 taught us that the amount of money we have is a consequence of how many zeros a nameless bank teller who lives in the basement of the Federal Reserve (who I’ve arbitrarily named Bob) types into his magic money computer box. So, if at the end of it all we decide that giving money away to make the craziness in Iraq and Syria stop actually isn’t going to work, then we’ll have Bob type in a few more zeros and we will always have the option to unchain the full force of the military to bomb them back into the stone age.

Ironically, it feels like ever since the stone age the violence in the Middle East has expanded from what would appear to be smoldering embers of disconnected jihadis who are simply defending Islam to a blazing inferno of vicious genocidal ideologues who will stop at nothing to manifest the ultimate Islamic State. The world has been captivated by the brilliant flames of moral ambiguity, unrestrained violence, and political unrest. While boots on the ground feels like the only way to stamp out the flames, the idea of using cold hard cash to take all of the oxygen away from fueling the fire would be a low-low price to pay for no more dead Americans.

Think about it and consider yourself briefed.

How is it that we have prisoners of war when America had so meticulously avoided engaging in such a war? We coined the term ‘Enemy Combatant’ to avoid any legal ramifications for baptizing prisoners with freedom in a dark corner of the basement. If there are POWs in Guantanamo, we might be in a bit of trouble if anyone takes a peak at the Geneva Conventions because it doesn’t allow for stuffing POWs into small boxes or simulating a drowning affect to coerce information.

Where did this word Enemy Combatant come from? What’s the difference between an assassination and a targeting killing? Is there such a thing as terrorists or simply tactics? Has anyone else noticed an unapologetic abuse of words and their meanings so that we can salvage some sense of morality, dignity, or political face?

It may not matter, but I’ve thought about it for a while and if nothing else, perhaps you can linger on the questions to form your own opinion. It could be that Senator Hagel simply slipped and we’ll likely hear from a non-descript lawyer doing some verbal acrobatics to explain how we should interpret it. Either way, it’s curious how words matter so much, yet not at all, all at the same time.

If we rewind about 13 years, a few moments after 19 hijackers turned 4 commercial airliners into Jihadi Guided Missiles, we stood back stupefied and breathless. In less than one day a rogue faction of Muslim wing nuts had successfully shredded America’s sense of comfort and security. Retaliation was for certain, but who do we retaliate against? What do we call this enemy who has no land and no government to support their lawlessness? How would we characterize what would be, in its purist form, an act of vengeance?

Despite George W’s prolific use of the phrase “Global War on Terror,” it’s important to note that the free world was not, in fact, at war. Even though he began awarding soldiers Global War on Terror Service Medals, we were not at war. The words fell from The President’s lips with quiet enthusiasm and we rallied the rest of the free world to join us in arms. Due process was thrown to the wind and the media latched on to the words, repeating them with the irritating regularity akin to Justin Beiber getting tossed in jail. So it shall be: The War on Terror.

In Congressional Legalese, we could anecdotally toss the phrase around but we are not ‘assassinating’ soldiers ‘at war’ in response to a ‘terrorist attack’. This was a ‘Surge of Troops’ executing ‘targeted killings’ of ‘enemy combatants’ to ‘protect our freedom.’

There’s clearly a difference. [Insert uncomfortable silence here].

For those of you doing the math, if you take a suicidal Middle Easterner, inspire him by God to hate America, add in some crazy, then subtract a sovereign land to govern, the answer on the other side of that equation is ‘Enemy Combatant.’ It’s lazy to simplify them into ‘Terrorists’ because there really isn’t such a thing. There’s tactics… but what is a terrorist, really? Ask any Allah abiding Al Qeada enthusiast and they would probably describe you in exactly the same manner. This would assuredly be punctuated with ‘infidel’ and ‘heathen.’

Moving along to the nuances of war, it is by definition a prolonged conflict carried out by states against each other (Reference: The Googles). Although we were quick to rename these brazen soldiers terrorists and rename our troops ‘advisors’, we could not point at a sovereign nation, mobilize a full battalion, and declare all out war.

So what is it then?

A counterstrike? Insurgency? Conflict? Little credence was given to the political, social, or legal implications of launching a Global War on Terror (GWOT). It’s a curious misnomer considering how we meticulously avoided all of the rules that would apply to an act of war.

If in fact it was a war, we would be bound to afore mentioned Geneva Conventions. The GC is a series of treaties and protocols between sovereign states that stem back to the late 1800s and were finalized in the wake of WWI. In short, they set the terms for the humanitarian treatment of war, specifically how to treat prisoners, protections for the wounded, and protections for civilians. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the War Machine at the Pentagon had little desire to get caught up in the sticky web of international law so it was imperative that we didn’t go to war. The term Enemy Combatant made it that much easier to point to this collective group of anti-American Sand Cowboys who had no base, no insignia, a closet full of toothpaste bombs, and old Soviet Kalashnikovs and tell them that the Geneva Conventions would not apply.

Oh, and please stay to the left for your complementary dose of Freedom.

So, although we continued to capitalize on the inspirational and unifying rhetoric that perpetuated the ‘War on Terror,’ it was determined by the American Government that we were truly not at war because we were not in fact fighting soldiers within a sovereign nation. Much in the same way we were not ‘assassinating’ anybody. When we landed two modified Black Hawk Helicopters inside a Pakistani compound and two Navy Seal teams swept through the black of night, this was simply an exercise ‘to targeted kill’ Osama Bin Laden.

No assassinations here, folks. Move along… (Hey, look over there! Is that Elvis?)

You see, according to former NSA Director Keith Alexander, targeted killings are legitimate acts during times of conflict against enemy combatants within the context of self defense. You may now take a break from reading this to go get some ibuprofen to relieve the brain splitting headache induced by such speech writing dickery. This can also be alleviated by applying copious amounts of Scotch to your daily news reading regimen.

Never mind that some people see it differently – academics such as Gregory Johnsen and Charles Schmitz, twenty-six members of Congress, some media sources (Jeremy Scahill, James Traub), some human rights groups and an ex-CIA station chief from Islamabad (Robert Grenier), who have criticized targeted killings as similar to assassinations or extrajudicial killings – this simply can’t be. That would be illegal within the United States and under international law.

Will clever word play and elegant political jargon ever justify the things we do?

Who’s to say for certain? But consider yourself briefed.

- Spy Guy

On a side note, as China develops their brown water navy to a blue water navy they seem to be more active in renewing their territorial claims all around the SCS.

Spy Guy

Tinga

Report

Wiki

Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are all proper members of NATO, EU and the Euro. That means direct engagement with the U.S. and all NATO forces. That’s a bold gamble. A Loss could be catastrophic to the Russian government. The EU and US represent a 33 trillion GDP vs Russia and its 2.4 trillion. Bad math. If Russia moves on someone else I can’t imagine its west, gotta be south. Kazakhstan is tribal with 70% of 17 mil being Muslim. That could draw jihadis. No one likes jihadis. And is the gateway to the “Stans” more Muslims, more jihadis. Belarus could be easy but they only have 3\4 of a million Russians. Crimea lended itself with geography, having a perfect bottleneck in the north.

Maybe I’m overthinking Crimea. Maybe this is just personal payback to Kiev for shaming Putin during the Olympics?