We are not fighting terror or terrorism. We are fighting a group of people - al Qaeda and their associates. Shouldn’t we call it something else?
Yes.
Noam Chomsky has an excellent lecture on the topic: “Distorted Morality / America’s War on Terror?”… I have the DVD sitting in front of me, only watched the first half so far. It is a speech he made at Harvard in 2002, if I recall correctly. He comments a lot on the past and what is terrorism (and how America is a participant in it, using definitions from Reagan and Bush)
I think there are two big problems with the “War on Terror” nomenclature:
-
It implies an open-ended state of war against a nebulous enemy in an ill-defined conflict. Conventionally, the wars of modern developed nations are pretty specific temporary armed conflicts with other national entities. A country makes certain sacrifices and accepts certain restrictions for the period of the war, which everybody wants to bring to a speedy and successful end. In a “war on terror”, on the other hand, whom exactly are we fighting and how do we know when or if we’ve won? What’s the difference between an open-ended state of war and a permanent state of war? Can a democracy survive on a permanent war footing? Continuous, permanent activities for protecting a society against nebulous, perennial enemies are generally more aptly described as policing, not war.
-
It glorifies criminals. “War” connotes some kind of honorable opponents or enemies who have openly entered into a physical trial of strength with our armed forces, to overcome or be defeated by them. This is way too noble a role for murdering thugs who pretend to be harmless, law-abiding people while they plot to slaughter innocent civilians.
About as stupid as the term “War on Drugs.” Because, you know, no heroin, cocaine or LSD is making it into the U.S. these days. :dubious:
I believe they originally wanted to call it a “War on Evil,” but someone pointed out that it sounded a little too much like something a six-year-old would come up with. George needed a bowl of Rocky Road ice cream before he’d stop crying.
Well, Daddy Rove did let him have the Axis of Evil to make it up.
possibly a darn sight less than would make it if one didn’t try.
Its a political catchphrase, not a title for an academic treatise
It is a political catchphrase and we’ve got a long history of declaring war on things. Crime, drugs, and poverty come to immediate mind. What difference does it make if it’s called a war on terrorism or something else? Should we use our military and intelligence resources to go after terrorist organizations and individuals? Certainly.
Marc
Er, would you mind repeating that in English?
It is a misleading and frankly embarassingly stupid name for a misleading and embarassingly stupid campaign - and it is a title for a political treatise, which is a bit more dangerous than an academic one.
Wow, we’ve lost a lot of wars…
[quote]
Should we use our military and intelligence resources to go after terrorist organizations and individuals? Certainly.
I disagree. Apparently, our military and intelligence resources are COMPLETELY FREAKING INEPT. That, or horribly, horribly corrupt. Either way, I think a good case can be used to NOT use them.
It’s pretty clear - the poster is claiming that as a result of the War on Drugs, fewer drugs make it into the US. I am not certain I agree with him, and don’t think the results justify the costs, but it isn’t tough to see what he was saying.
Argh. I hate this argument. Some murders go unsolved, so I guess we should stop investigating murders.
I may even agree with the sentiment that the cost isn’t justified, but to say because it isn’t 100% effective, it isn’t worth doing seems silly.
[QUOTE=Demorian]
Wow, we’ve lost a lot of wars…
Yes, but hey with those defeats comes successes, the US military and intelligence aren’t 100% incompetent.
the “war on terror”, though being a political catchphrase, is not a harmless one. it can be and has been used to justify certain acts that would only be justified if we were in a state of war, and by portraying this as an actual war, those trying to legitimize these actions can.
If it’s too much of a hijack that no one wants to answer I understand, but I ask seriously: what was the most recent battle in the War on Terror? And who won?
For some reason I’m having great trouble following the evolution of this conflict.
Welcome to Cold Comfort Farm.
We screwed the pooch from the git-go. We are the number one military power in the world, so we tried to frame the problem as a state to state conflict, to make our massive military advantage relevent and crucial, it is a classic case of a hammer seeing all problems as nails.
But launching an artillery barrage on an incoming fog is useless. Noisy, dramatic, but ultimately futile to the point of silly. What we needed, and need, is friendly eyes and ears in the markets of Ankara, the alleys of Lebanon, and the slums of Hamburg. We need spies, turncoats and rats.
And for a moment there, we had it all. People who don’t even like us very much were holding candlelight vigils on our behalf. And we screwed it all up playing Tough Guy. And, of course, in the process, assuring that the lines for recruitment centers for our enemys stretch for blocks.
This does for stupid what outer space does for empty.
No, it’s just the guys at the top.
Um, I believe the last strike was the Spanish election bombings that so famously got the Spanish taking place as the French for being cowards in the Frank Burnses of the world. Either way you view it, well, we didn’t win.
Not terribly much has happened since then (outside of Israel and Chechnya… but those aren’t OUR Wars on Terror). Most of the terrorists are too busy getting new recruits and having fun in Iraq, I think.
Yes, I realize that a lot has happened under the radar of the mass news media, but I’m speaking for all intents and purposes. The War on Terror is a publicity war gone military, and Iraq has soaked up all the publicity lately (aside from the latest American Idol competition).
However, the terror alert keeps rising to orange, so keep your eyes out! Any second now, they could attack! Quick, re-ratify the Patriot Act before they get ya!
I just call them “neocons.”