Al Qaeda: Combatants or Criminals

Via NY Times:

THE line between soldier and civilian has long been central to the law of war. Today that line is being blurred in the struggle against transnational terrorists. Since 9/11 the Bush administration has sought to categorize members of Al Qaeda and other jihadists as “unlawful combatants” rather than treat them as criminals. [...]

Treating terrorists as combatants is a mistake for two reasons. First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the law of war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill the enemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefully distinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited. [...]

By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaeda represents no state, nor does it carry out any of a state’s responsibilities for the welfare of its citizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda an undeserved status.

I have the distinct feeling that he doesn't read what he writes. He says that Al Qaeda should not be labeled as combatants but should just be criminals (who are citizens, btw) and then says that combatants can't attack citizens (purposely). The military should not be simple police, catching criminals is not their job. The military's purpose is to engage an enemy combatant force and quell it. There is a vast difference between peacemaking and policing. Now, this wouldn't bother me if it was just some conservative nutjob, or random ranter, but this is Wes Clark ("the former supreme commander of NATO, is a fellow at the Burkle Center for International Relations at the University of California at Los Angeles."). He also was drafted into the Democratic Part nomination in 2003 although he dropped out in 2004 to support John Kerry. Clearly, this is a person who should be able to offer some insight into foreign relations, especially those dealing with military conflict. Sadly, we must put General Clark into the crazy box and shake our heads a the nonsense people will say.