It's War, Not Crime

Foreign affairs expert George Friedman blogs at Geopolitical Futures. Today his topic is how we think about jihadi violence, and where those thoughts need to go next.

Writing about the shooting in Orlando, he notes a decision first Bush and then Obama never made clearly:

Was this a criminal act or an act of war? Answering that question is the key to determining the appropriate response.

If these are criminal acts, then the criminals must be punished for their actions. If these are acts of war, then the enemy forces must be found and destroyed, not based on what they might or might not have done, but in order to destroy the enemy before they can strike again.

If it's war, FBI-style "burden of proof" issues go away. Friedman answers his own question; concluding terrorism is war, not crime:

To distinguish between crime and war, you have to look at intent, not means. The means may be the same but the goal is different. Criminals pursue money or are unbalanced and pursue fantasies. Terrorists are pursuing political ends, and therefore, their attacks are consistent with the definition of war. War is a continuation of politics by different means. War is intimately bound up with politics. Crime is not. There are always gray areas, but this definition works.

Friedman agrees with Peters, cited below. About defining with whom the West is at war, Friedman writes:

This is a war and jihadists are the enemy. Not all Muslims are jihadists, but all jihadists are Muslims. (snip) Giving up liberties may be too high a price, but we should be honest in admitting the price we will pay.

I'd add to the enemies list all who support and enable jihadists, directly or tacitly.