The basis for Gulf War 1 was to eject Saddam from Kuwait, and the basis for Gulf War 2 was the War On Terror. In both cases we *were* at war with the Iraqi regime.
The diplomats, politicians and even the army are very keen on emphasising that we are NOT at war with the regime in the case of Libya. This is more or less “true”. But it is not the “actualité”.
(Politicians and diplomats are completely familiar with the concept of “being economical with the actualité”. Google Alan Clark for a fantastic example of it.)
The actualité is, this whole Libya thing has been dressed up as a humanitarian intervention requiring swift and decisive international action. Precisely so that it *doesn’t* fit the exact same circumstances of a “war”.
Remember how the term “unlawful combatants” was coined simply to escape the “prisoner of war” jargon under which the Geneva Convention applied? Same thing.
Appreciate the explanation.
Still looks dodgy to me.
Do you reckon the US Armed Forces participating know they’re not really at war?
Are you insinuating the term "unlawful combatant" only appeared during the WOT?
...the distinction between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants (also referred to as “unprivileged belligerents”) has deep roots in international humanitarian law, preceding even the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907 contemplated distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants, and this distinction remains to this day.As Professor Adam Roberts told the Brookings Speakers Forum in March 2002, “There is a long record of certain people coming into the category of unlawful combatants— pirates, spies, saboteurs, and so on. It has been absurd that there should have been a debate about whether or not that category exists.”