Hunger Strike as Asymmetric Warfare

Asymmetric warfare is a viable option when you can not compete on the battlefield in traditional warfare. The hunger strike is one of the few options that detainees at Guantanamo have to inflame world opinion on their behalf and further the cause of Islamo-fascism. The hunger strike is, therefore, a potent form of asymmetric warfare.

Civil-liberties advocates point out that Guantanamo's 460 inmates have few other means to make their voices heard, given that most have been detained for more than four years without even being charged with a crime. Indeed, though the U.S. has condemned the hunger strikers at Gitmo, just last year the White House hailed a hunger-striking Iranian dissident for showing "that he is willing to die for his right to express his opinion."

To counter the hunger strike movement, the U.S. military instituted a now successful program of forced feeding. In essence, there is a “dying is not permitted” policy at Guantanamo.

At Gitmo, however, dead prisoners are something the U.S. military wishes devoutly to avoid. So force-feeding has been standard policy at the camp ever since hunger strikes began in early 2002.

The object of warfare is to obtain your way at the cost of someone else. At Guantanamo, it has become more expedient to make the extra effort and keep the detainee alive rather than allow him to starve to death and score asymmetric warfare points. It is ironic justice to deny the detainee, who wants nothing more than to leave the earthly world, the opportunity of fulfilling his dream of becoming a martyr. For the detainee, it has literally become a hell on earth.

Previous:
I’ve Never Understood the Hunger Strike