Luis Garcia
Dr. Martin
English 1301
24 October2013
Enemy Combatant or Terrorist?: A Designation Makeover
This current “War on Terror” is not a familiar feat for the United States of America. For the past 12 years The U.S has had to constantly adapt and develop new operating procedures. The difficulty of this war derives from it not being a conventional war. We are fighting an enemy (Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.) that has taken guerilla warfare to a whole new level. This enemy has gone from crashing planes into the Twin Towers to placing I.E.D’s (improvised explosive devices) in the streets of Baghdad without any regard to the welfare of its own civilians. There is no doubt this is a complicated war, so complicated that our nation has even struggled with the finer designation of those we are combating. “Enemy combatants” and “Terrorists” are classes we are battling with every day yet still struggling to justly categorize them in legal terms. The vagueness on the definition of “Enemy Combatant” and “Terrorist” has led to voids and abuse of these terms. This in turn has produced an inconsistency on combat operations and legal categorizations. It is often said old men declare wars and young men fight them. This is even more the case in our present conflict with there being over ten significant court cases that have shaped our rules of engagement in fighting on the battlefield (Garrison 449). It can be strongly argued that the fights in the court room are becoming as important as the ones on the battlefield. The court room’s lack of consistency in designation of “Enemy Combatants” is a scary thought. It means there is no clear or standard procedure in the court room in dealing with “Enemy Combatants”. This translates to a gray area our men and woman in uniform have to deal with. Being a marine who experienced combat firsthand, I can attest to this being a dangerous question to have to answer in the heat of battle. This is a new type of war that requires the United States to categorize all those who engage us on the battlefield and foreigners who attack us by acts of terrorism to be considered “Enemy Combatants” and not just “Terrorist”. This will provide consistency in dealing with all those who attack us, and provide us with a standard operating procedure in battle for this war and wars to come.
It is no astonishment that we were caught off guard and had to play such a huge role in something we only had a taste of in the past. We have made a huge transition to be where we are now with the designations of “Enemy Combatant’s” and “Terrorist’s”. Still, we have a long ways to go. When the World Trade Center was attacked for the first time in 1993, some of those responsible were tried and convicted then only sent to prison rather than charged as war criminals. This issue was never settled and the world witnessed the United States treat “Terrorists” as simple criminals (Garrison 4). These “Terrorists” went on to continue to train and plot against the United States. Finally on September 11th, 2001, these “Terrorists” who we now know as “Al Qaeda” carried out their most catastrophic attack to date, killing thousands of innocent American’s (Garrison 4). After the attack, the United States found itself falling in its familiar habits in treating terrorists as criminals. However, the United States found a way around this by developing a new term; “unlawful combatant”. This was a way to go around the Geneva Convention and be able to detain suspected terrorists and enemy combatants alike in Guantanamo Bay (Garrison 335). “Terrorists” are considered civilians by the Geneva Convention and “Enemy Combatants” are those that take up arms against an opposition, but unlawful combatants are a gray area in between (Garrison 137). This causes more confusion between the two and less consistency in dealing with the enemies of the U.S. The enemy does not wear official uniforms, making this a different type of war the U.S. is accustom to (Garrison 334). With the lack of uniforms, they do not obtain the right to be classified as a prisoner of war. This creates less of a doctrine to follow on how we handle those we detain, which in turn swung the door open for interpretation on what defines an “Enemy Combatant” or “Terrorist” (Garrison 335). If “Terrorists” are considered civilians by the Geneva Convention how are we at war? You cannot wage a war against ordinary civilians. The term does not mean they are innocent civilians. This is just a vague word thrown around years ago when the Geneva Convention was first written (Garrison 312). Times and combat has changed dramatically within the last couple decades. When a civilian, like a terrorist, takes up arms against another group of people they are then, according to the Geneva Convention, considered “Enemy combatants” (Garrison 309). In that sense why “Terrorists” are not considered “Enemy Combatants”? It’s this lack of consistency and poor discernment that is generating confusion with an enemy that at times is more organized than us. The United States shifted away from the Geneva Convention way of thinking yet still got trapped with some of its out of dated ideas. The vague definitions of “Terrorist” and “Enemy Combatant” creates confusion in certain aspects of legalities. A terms description should not be so confusing that’s it requires continuous scrutiny to make sure the terms hold some integrity. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an Al Qaeda operative who tried to blow up an airliner over Detroit in December of 2009. He was convicted in federal court and considered not an “enemy combatant” because he wasn’t in foreign soil attacking Americans (Rivkin, Casey). David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey, lawyers and former U.S. Department of Justice officials, both concluded that instead of being considered a common criminal, Abdulmutallah should have been tried as an “Enemy Combatant” and to adhere to the law of war. Since some “Terrorists” are considered civilians they are not subjected to laws of war and not seen as war criminals. In some instances such as this one they aren’t even categorized the United States designation of unlawful combatants. Law enforcement and war have entirely different procedures so it should be quite clear that the two are no to not be mixed or overlap (Rivkin, Casey). The Revolutionary War, Civil War, Spanish-American War, and the War of 1812 are not the only wars fought on American soil. America has been attacked on it backyard during this war. Therefore, it shouldn’t matter if Americans are attacked on foreign battle grounds or on our own airlines, an “Enemy Combatant” is an “Enemy Combatant” wherever he/she may be (Rivkin, Casey). This is a type of war that crosses all geographic borders. An “Enemy Combatants” views and intentions do not change simply because they have stepped into a different setting so why should our views change? Rivkin and Casey also point out that individuals who have committed terrorist acts on behalf of personal beliefs, who are completely not associated with any ideologies, organizations that we are engaged with in armed conflict, such as Al Qaeda and Taliban, are “Terrorists” and not “Enemy Combatants”. These examples would include Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bomber) and Major Nidal Malik Hasan (Fort Hood Shooter). Those individuals are criminals and U.S citizens, making them not liable of war crimes (Rivkan, Casey). It does not makes sense to blend legal categorizations of those criminals who acted by themselves with “Enemy Combatants” who engage in conflict with our nation every day. We need to extinguish the confusion and promote consistency. However, the confusion does not end in events happening only on U.S soil, but also stretches across to the heart of the fighting in Afghanistan.
During this war there are many teaching that came into full effect and were vital to the success of combat operations. Some of these being hostile intent and hostile actions. Hostile intent means the contemplation and planning on committing hostile acts. On the other hand, hostile actions are actually engaging the hostile intent. Our enemy, whether someone wants to classify them as “Terrorist” or “Enemy Combatant”, has hostile intent. And may or may not act out their intentions. Terrorism is a tactic in fighting wars. We tie terrorism with suicide bombers and the devastating bombing of civilian targets but these acts also happened in World War 2 (Garrison 125).The Japanese suicide bombed the United States by flying planes into Naval vessels and the Germans conducted raids on civilian targets. A nation cannot be at war without a technique, which terrorism is, such as the examples listed above Jack Goldsmith was Head of the Office of Legal Counsel who advised President George Bush on the beginning stages of the war. He makes the argument that waging a war with a technique opens a dangerous door leading us to uncertain paths (Goldsmith 104). Furthermore, it would be hypocritical for our nation to not consider “Terrorism” a tactic when our own country used similar tactics during the revolutionary war. The British considered unfair these tactics unfare. At that time it was considered morally unacceptable to attack during holidays yet George Washington is famously depicted crossing the Delaware on Christmas Eve raiding an enemy camp (Lee 189). However, what George Washington did is not viewed as “Terrorism” it’s seen as an innovative tactic that was used to defeat a stronger, more technologically advanced enemy. A tactic is a method used by an enemy, it is not some kind of classification for an enemy. This is why a proper distinction has to be made between “Enemy combatants” and “Terrorism”. These terms are leading to question if we are even in a war. We have based our tactics too much on fighting Terrorism that we have gotten away from dealing with tangible targets. Our nation has backed off on using a combat mind set in this war claiming you can’t have a framework like that against a uniform-less enemy. However International law states that armed conflict can exist between Non-State actors and whole nations (Goldsmith 103). In fact, the U.S has participated in conflicts like this before such as the Boxer Rebellion in 1899, when a radical group tried to eliminate foreign imperialism in China. This is prime example that the term “Enemy Combatant” should be used in proper context. The fact remains that war isn’t an event in only which Sovereign states engage. The Bush administration denied the third Geneva Convention to detainees, which is the Prisoner of War status. The way the situation is outlined, not wearing a uniform is against the Geneva Convention, and thus making all detainees caught considered unlawful combatants. It needs to be understood that this is a different kind of war, yet this is still a war. As mentioned as above there can be war between a nation and a Non-State Actor so there is no need to usher the term “Terrorist” to get the point across we are at war. Although it is debatable whether or not the Bush administration was wrong or right, a lack of specific protocol is why the U.S was able to treat detainees anyway they wanted for so long (Goldsmith 108).Regardless of being unlawful or lawful, “Enemy Combatants” are enemies and the term terrorism should not be used to counter the legitimacy and focus of this war. The mindset of armed forces still needs to be retained for dealing with “Enemy Combatants” and not only “Terrorists”. Our troops encounter improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and vehicle borne IEDs (which are a form of suicide bombing) on an everyday occasion. Those instances are not considered acts of terrorism, but combat. Corporal Matthew Villa, an active duty Marine with 2 overseas deployments, has also led patrols in Afghanistan. While speaking to him, he brought to light that a bulk of training is getting redirected from dealing with enemy combatants. The marines have shifted focus in how to spot terrorists and detain suspected terrorists instead of how to engage enemy combatants. This has also effected rules of engagement making the criteria for an “Enemy Combatant” more detailed which in turn is effecting how U.S forces carry out combat operations. It’s simple, the current “Enemy Combatant” designation is difficult to interpret making it demanding for our troops to carry out their missions. Corporal Villa adds that “We are already facing an enemy that is difficult to fight without having to worry if we would get in trouble for engaging a high valued terrorist target”. Targets are categorized if they are “Enemy Combatants” or not. If they aren’t, then there are different protocols to engage which is time consuming and a bureaucracy that most combat seasoned veterans don’t like dealing with. Sargent Michael Provost also served over seas with Corporal Villa and is currently getting ready for his third deployment. He explains how rules of engagement for “Terrorist” and “Enemy Combatants can be very confusing”. For example when engaging a cleared “Enemy Combatant” target, American forces are free to engage as soon contact is made. However, if the target is declared a “Terrorist” by intelligence assets American forces may not be cleared to engage even if receiving small arms fire from said name “Terrorist”. This is due to the fact that “Terrorist” are seen more as an opportunity to gather intelligence rather than a combat element. Sargent Provost recalls many times when his command was more concerned with detaining the “Terrorist” target rather than eliminating the threat from the Taliban fighting force and keeping future U.S troops out of harm’s way. If there was not any confusion between the terms “Enemy Combatant” and “Terrorist” and both were considered “Enemy Combatants” our fighting men and woman can concentrate on eliminated targets with more speed and accuracy and spend less time in harms way.
In summary, this war is not a phenomenon that only our country is witnessing happen. The Philippians fight Al Qaeda on their own soil daily. This is a type of war that is happening more frequently. Just like the world moved forward from fighting in formations like we did in the Revolutionary War period, the world moves forward again. All foreign “Terrorist” need to be designated as “Enemy Combatants” now because we would be closed minded to not expect to fight these kinds of wars again in the future. We must move forward with the times and create clear a distinction of how and when “Terrorism” is synonymous to “Enemy Combatants.” The ambiguity we have been dealing with in the legal categorizations of “Enemy Combatants” and “Terrorist” is bringing forth a stigma and reality that is hard to face. It has to be made sure that all foreign “Terrorists” are treated as “Enemy combatants” and that none slip into the wrong legal categorizations. Consistency and clear defined terms will ensure a standard procedure is met and less confusion is created in the courtroom and battlefield in order to protect our American civilians and armed forces.

Works Cited
Garrison, Arthur H. Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Times of National Crisis, Terror and War. Lanham: Roman and Littlefeild, 2011. 19 october 2013. Print. Goldsmith, Jack. Terror Presidency. New York City: W.W Norton & Company, Inc, 2007. 19 October 2013. Print.
Lee, Stevens. Ethics and War. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Book. 5 November 2013. Print.
Rivkin, David B., and Lee A. Casey. "Terrorists Should Be Classified as War Criminals and Enemy Combatants." War Crimes. Ed. Margaret Haerens. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2011. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Enemy Combatants or Criminal Defendants?" National Review (6 Jan. 2010). Opposing Viewpoints In Context. Web. 19 Oct. 2013.
Provost, Michael. Personal Interview. 6 November 2013.
Villa, Mathew. Personal Interveiw. 18 October 2013.