War? on Terror

No, the title is not mispunctuated. There has been much confusion and debate surrounding how to deal with the threat of Al-Qaeda and international organised terror, simply because terrorists escape easy classification within the current rules of war.

In most wars, the Geneva Conventions are readily applicable. The distinction between civilian and combatant is very clear. The person wearing a uniform and carrying a rifles is a soldier, and the person in jeans and a t-shirt is a civilian. During war, if you shoot the soldier, it is legal. If you shoot the civilian, its a war crime.

This brings us to the whole problem with terrorism. Is it a war or not? If it is, who are the combatants, and who are the innocent bystanders?

Nations engage in warfare for many reasons, but most people accept that warfare is justified in a defensive capacity - to protect the lives and livelihoods of its citizens. In the past, the threat would have come from another nation. Today, the main armed threat to most human lives is terrorism, which has no borders. Nonetheless, the threat to human lives is real, and governments owe a responsibility to their citizens to defend them from terrorists, even if it means shooting to kill. Thus, the defence against terrorism is rightly classified as a war.

There is an added problem when it comes to a war on terror. There are no uniforms to identify combatants, and strictly speaking, even in a conventional war, combatants are not limited to those who bear arms. Take for example a truck loaded with armed soldiers. Surely the armed soldiers are combatatns. How about the military driver who is uarmed? He plays a supporting role in the war. Surely he could be considered a combatant as well. At the very least, if the truck exploded under gunfire, it would be a stretch to consider the killing of the driver a war crime. So we understand that people within the organisation that fights the war who provide support for that war can be combatants as well, even if they do not carry arms. Where no combatant within that organisation weras uniforms, anyone providing them with support could be a part of its support structure, with no discernable way of distinguishing between "civilian" and "military" support without questioning at the very least (especially since the writer does not endorse torture).

Communications personnel are part of any military support structure. They connect various fighting units, provide intelligence and so on. They are in fact a vital part of any military organisation, and due to their role is disseminating information, they are key in implementing strategy.

Therefore, in this war on terror, enemy (terrorist) communications personnel, that is to say people who provide information to terorrists, help recruit terrorists, or relay information for terrorists, are rightly considered as enemy combatants and should only be afforded the limited rights granted by the Geneva Convention, which does not proscribe detention without trial.

The International Herald Tribute wrote about a Belgian woman who openly supports Al-Qaeda, does recrutiment for them and so on. She should be detained indefinitely as an enemy combatant.

Note: We should just be clear on this in Singapore, instead of invoking the controversial Internal Security Act.