From Manhattan to Baghdad: One enemy, one war, one outcome.

The National Review ^ | February 21, 2003 | Victor Davis Hanson

[WOSG]

Half-way through I was thinking "this war he speaks of started in 1979 with the US embassy hostage taking in Tehran" then I read this:

The jailing of al Qaeda, the end of the Taliban, and the destruction of Saddam's clique will convince the Arab world that it is not wise or safe to practice jihad as it has been practiced since 1979. Killing American diplomats, blowing up Marines in their sleep, flattening embassies, attacking warships, and toppling buildings will not only not work but bring on a war so terrible that the very thought of the consequences from another 9/11 would be too horrific to contemplate.

If we understand that when 9/11 happened, the war was ALREADY ON FOR 22 YEARS, then we get a different perspective. WE realize immediately that we *have* been fighting this war for decades, and didnt realize it, and that our lack of understanding that we *were* in a war is perhaps why we are making a hash out of it.

[Dajjal]

BTTT

[q_an_a]

What should be next is Chavez and Castro.

[John O]

Whenever I see this quiz I always note that they forgot to include the Washington DC Snipers.

[SJackson]

If you'd like to be on or off this middle east/political ping list, please FR mail me.

[Grampa Dave]

Good sound logic here!

The jailing of al Qaeda, the end of the Taliban, and the destruction of Saddam's clique will convince the Arab world that it is not wise or safe to practice jihad as it has been practiced since 1979. Killing American diplomats, blowing up Marines in their sleep, flattening embassies, attacking warships, and toppling buildings will not only not work but bring on a war so terrible that the very thought of the consequences from another 9/11 would be too horrific to contemplate.

Taking on all at once Germany, Japan, and Italy — diverse enemies all — did not require the weeding out of all the fascists and their supporters in Mexico, Argentina, Eastern Europe, and the Arab world. Instead, those in jackboots and armbands worldwide quietly stowed all their emblems away as organized fascism died on the vine once the roots were torn out in Berlin, Rome, and Tokyo. So too will the terrorists, once their sanctuaries and capital shrivel up — as is happening as we speak.

Since 1979 we have been caught in a classic bellum interuptum that could not be resolved through mediation and appeasement, but only — as we saw in 9/11 — made worse. Wars do not end with truces nor do they start because of accidents or miscommunications. They break out when one side has aggressive aims and advances grievances — whether real or perceived — and feels there is nothing to deter it. And conflicts end for good with either victory or defeat. Although we may not see it now, we really are in one war against one enemy — and since we started fighting it on September 12 we are, in fact, winning and will soon be nearing the end.

[dark_lord]

I am going to make some comments, and then draw a conclusion -- which will sound quite radical to many, I think. So feedback is requested.

(I) We are at war, yes?

(II) A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.]

(III)What, exactly, is a “militia” as declared under the law today?
From TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311 of the US code:
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
And from title 32...
Sec. 313. - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations
(a)
To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

Validation of points II and III:
(IV) U.S. Supreme Court PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
116 U.S. 252 PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS.
“It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.”

Conclusions:
(a) We are at war (from article above.)
(b) All members of the unorganized militia should prepare themselves to bear arms against the enemy in this war.

So...is this a logical conclusion, and what are the ramifications?

[tomkat]

an important, and accurate, distinction.
agreed.
bump...

btw, welcome to FR

[RightWhale]

The National Guard as militia was defined long after the Constitution was adopted. Next century, and so would not have entered into the discussion at the time.