You keep using that word, “terrorists.” I do not think it means what you think it means.
The Barbary Pirates were (as the name implies) pirates, not “terrorists” in the modern sense.
Sorry, but I am getting annoyed by this creeping expansion of the meaning of the word “terrorism.”
They also weren’t stateless- or paying tribute to Tripoli, Algiers, etc would have been pointless. Corsairs or buccaneers vs Pirates. Most western pirates were stateless (except those who were privateers).
Seems like it all depends on how you define “war”.
I think SentientMeat summed it up perfectly in his first post. The wars between states are now over, and the occupation, (very) roughly analagous to post-War Europe and Japan, is ongoing. There could be further “wars” between the US and the DPRK or Iran, but that’s still quite uncertain, and perhaps unlikely.
TWAT is just a pat moniker for a “campaign”, “struggle”, whatever you like against Islamist extremists. It’s not even “against terrorism” in any general sense, as I don’t see ETA or the IRA being mentioned. It’s probably because those groups don’t have a particular beef with the US. “The Struggle Against Islamist Extremists” is rhetorically and politically problematic for a whole slew of reasons, not the least because it has a boldly chauvinistic quality and would make our few Islamic “allies” bolt like branded mules. But TWAT is easy to sell. It’s got a nice ring to it. I wouldn’t take the wording all that seriously. Suffuce to say, Islamist extremists are a security concern for the USA, and military force (among other interventions, one can only hope) have been brought to bear on that problem.
The USSR was by far a greater threat to the US and there was no such total mobilisation or total war footing… and lo and behold the US won anyway ! So why should stateless terrorists warrant more ?
I think terrorism should be viewed in the same light… military power helps… but it doesn’t solve. You win in the long term. Just throwing money and marines at “terrorism” doesn’t win the “war”. Its a cultural, political and up to a point economic conflict. How and what you do is sometimes more important than how much money you can throw at it.
If americans go about their lives and shopping normally... that above all would mean terrorism hasn't won. When americans are continually subjected to the notion that their civilization is about to be destroyed ("that or be destroyed") then terrorists are winning.Your comparison isn’t all that good. The fraction of the total US national income devoted to just the military end of the cold war was a lot higher that today’s fraction. In addition to that there was a lot of foreign aid that was for the purpose of buying off possible USSR supporters. So the degree of mobilization of US resources for the cold war was substantially higher than is currently the case.
And the question was “Are we really at war?” The answer, to me is, no we are not. It seems to me that the term “we are at war” is mainly used by the administration and its supporters to cast doubt on the motives of those who question their course of action. Witness GW’s continued harping on the theme that when Kerry questions his leadership the troops’ morale is affected. If the troops don’t already question their situation in Iraq without Kerry’s help then they are collectively a lot more obtuse than I think they are.
Darn it, now you’ve got me thinkin’ about waffles.
Mmmmmm, waffles.
There’s always the ‘War’ on Drugs. :rolleyes:
That’s costing US taxpayers a lot of money, but has the useful attribute that there are few casualties.
You don’t find this to be an attack on liberals?
Sorry to do two in a row but there are so many points to respond to, and I was premature with my last post. Technically a war is any conflict between (semi)state powers that results in more than 1000 casualities. This is the accepted current definition for political science and just war studies. Mary Kaldor’s New and Old Wars and John A. Vasquez’ The War Puzzle use that definition as did classes I took in at University of Edinburgh, Scotland and University of California, Santa Cruz. Also my professor who taught at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California used this as the definition. The state/semistate actors part of the definition is hotly debated but mostly surrounds civil wars and what of groups(such as Al Qaeda) who do not aspire to replace a government, but only to change some aspect of it.
I’m not sure if that’s a useful attribute, but it does make the uselessness of the whole campaign a tad easier to swallow. You must qualify the statement about casualties by saying “US casualties”. There are plenty of casualties where the drugs are produced, many of them a direct result of US actions in TWAD.
I disagree with the first part of this. That the Administration uses the war as a club to beat its critics over the head with is SOP; happens almost every time. However, one doesn’t lose 1000 men and have thousands more wounded unless it’s war, and in the other war, against Bin Laden, I think killing 3000 people is a pretty good demonstration of just how serious he was when he declared war on us.
It’s a strange war, but like many other people, I have to go through multiple security checks every day when I go to work now, so I’m reminded every working day of what’s going on. That the Demagogue-in-Chief can’t see his way clear to actually paying for the war through increased taxes doesn’t mean that that isn’t the way to go, it just means that he considers rewarding his friends and patrons to be a higher priority than governing the country correctly. The inflation that will result from this decision will be manifest sooner or later; wars always produce inflation, but this one’s may come with a lag, as did the worst of the inflation produced by Vietnam.
Of course the American people are making sacrifices: a massive increase in the national debt, a great decrease in the respect of nations throughout the world, a reduction in personal rights and freedoms domestically, and of course the deaths of many people who are either Americans or who die at the hands of Americans in Iraq.
Call it what you will: a war, an illegal occupation, a police action; what remains is that there are significant economic, diplomatic, legal, physical and ethcal costs to the American people.
Bush had better not declare a ‘war against terriers’ - I will defend my two to the death!!
As for the war against terrorism, it was put forward at first in very broad terms - that he would hunt down terrorists wherever they were in the world [I wondered at the time would he invade NI if the ceasefires here broke down].
He changed his mind, however [can we call this a flip flop?] and narrowed it down to **“a fringe form of Islamic extremism” which seeks “to kill Christians and Jews, to kill all Americans, and make no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.” **
I wonder does that make him a terrorist also, though, as he has carried on his ‘war’ on Muslims [Afghani, Iraqi or whatever] also making no distinction among military and civilians, including women and children.?
Well that is a difficult war to go into, and rather unwarranted because Al Qaeda certainly doesn’t attempt to kill all Americans(just get them out of the holy land), and certainly makes a distinction between military and civilians 
civilians are much easier…
Well, the increase in the national debt certainly doesn’t bring home the war to people right now. The war’s being waged what the British call the ‘never never,’ i.e. the VISA plan.
GW’s and his supporters don’t care about the respect of what they see as a bunch of poltroons.
And it would seem that most American citizens also don’t care much about the loss of “personal rights and freedoms” as long as they are safe. That also goes for the death of other nationals.
I realize these aren’t germane to whether or not we are in a war. But it looks to me like most people don’t really regard any of this as a sacrifice.
This, to me, is one of the drawbacks to an all-volunteer professional military. It ought to be hard as hell for a leader to go to war in the absence of a direct assault on the US. As it stands, we are maintaining a large military which can be sent anywhere on the President’s say so and once they are committed the Congress has lost all control since “the troops must be supported.” The assumption seems to have been that the large military is necessary and maybe it is, but there was a further assumption I think, and that was that the President would have good sense.
David, you are very correct.
Still my idea is that the USSR is a good example of how a “war” that is not a war was won in the past… basically outspending and outmaneuvering. Naturally the resources poured into the Cold War were enormous… but still it wasn’t a war in the regular sense.
Oh, I agree with your main point. I would point out though, that the two big shooting wars we engaged in during the cold war, Korea and Vietnam, were, at best, only half-heartedly supported by the populace in general, mobilization was the minimum that was required and neither one was particularly successful.
Please check this out, as I think it appropriate to the subject at hand.
Unfortunate that you need more wars to get more heroes... brave guy this Fonseca. My first thought at reading the story was that it would be neat to have a black smoke grenade I could put over the vehicle and make it look like its burning. They kept getting shot. (Sorry hijack)