Quote:
|
So in the Second Gulf War conflict in Iraq where the Coalition Forces (mostly US and GB originally) were on the offensive, the coalition forces were engaged in combat but Iraq was engaged in self defense? It isn't combat if you are not on the offensive?
|
No, that's not exactly my meaning. I am referring to a distinction between the killing that takes place in war and the application of deadly force in self defense. In SD the goal is never to kill, the goal is to use the minimal force necessary to stop the threat. An unintended consequence of stopping the threat may be the death of the aggressor. To continue to use force after the threat has ended is excessive. In war often (not always) the objective is to kill the enemy. At the time of their death they may not have been doing anything overtly hostile but were still legitimate targets of war. Drone strikes, JDAM's and sniper shots among other tools of war are intended not just to stop aggressive behavior but to kill.
There is a broad chasm between what is "Legal" in war and what is legal in SD.
Pop Quiz: Tape a few claymores to 55 gallon drums of napalm , emplace them around the perimeter of your property then touch 'em off when your dog starts barking.
Question: Is this appropriate behavior for "Combat" (as in war) or "SD" as in the judicious application of the deadly force continuum to stop a reasonably perceived threat?
In the opening post, I don't think the OP was looking for a semantic debate over the dictionary definitions of "Combat" VS "SD". Correct me if I am wrong, but what I got from his post was that he had been trained for war and wanted to discuss the distinction between War and SD outside the context of war.
The Dictionary definition of "Combat" is so vague
Quote:
|
1. to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously:
|
that it can be applied to either situation of "SD or "War". But I think I understood the OP's intention was to use the term "Combat" to refer to war.