First of all, its a horrible phrase. You can’t fight an emotion. You might as well call it the “Fight on Fear.” I am aware it is a shortening of the “War on Terrorism or Terrorists”
Second of all, and probably more importantly, it is a brand name. Bush’s brand name. By using the phrase seriously, we show support to Bush and the neocons’ horrendous foreign policy. We are accepting their worldview by using their terms. We may disagree with them on the details but we mostly support their premises.
I think we have two choices. We can find an alternative phrase to use to better reflect our disagreement. “Battle against Radicals” or “Fight with Extremists” perhaps.
Or we could turn “War on Terror” into a joke. Unfortunately, I am not enough of a comedian to write a joke with War on Terror as a punchline.
We need to make a mockery of Bush and Co.'s terms to show that we disagree with his disaster of a foreign policy. We need our own terms and make theirs funny. Words have power.
Did Ike stop fighting the Cold War just because it started under Truman, or call it anything but what it was?
I can understand an honest disagreement over Iraq, but I would remind you that we were attacked in 2001 and we have lots of work to do in that particular conflict - on a lot of fronts.
I hope you’re not suggesting much of a fundamental change in our war in Afghanistan, or our efforts against extremism in places like Somalia and the Philippines. This is pretty important, and represents the vast bulk of the “Bush” foreign policy - most of which isn’t terribly controversial.
Another thing is it’s overuse of the War metaphor. We already have ongoing Wars on Poverty and Drugs. Yes, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are very real, but as applied to Terror, it’s a metaphor. This implies there is only a military solution, when in fact I believe the solution lies not with soldiers, but in diplomacy, intelligence gathering and law and order police work.
Also, I think it overstates the threat posed by terrorism. It should not necessarily be the primary, or seemingly only, basis for our foreign policy.
Hell, we’ve been losing ever since, and its just about 100% our own fault. As soon as we took into our heads that we were going to fight this like a “war”, we started losing. We had the sympathy of the entire world for a few brief moments, and we pissed it all away.
The terrorists are enemies, yes, but they are not “war”-level enemies that can be defeated by military means, they have no strategic points, no railroad junctions, no weapons complexes.
If the “war on terror” is to be fought effectively, we need to forget we even have a military, save for the occasional cruise missile opportunely applied. It has to be a war of police, of intelligence, spies and snitches. And it depends absolutely on the willing and sincere cooperation of others.
9/11 drove us nuts, and we are slowly getting over it. Perhaps now we can begin to move in the direction we should have done in the first place. Another reason we need a “change” administration, we need to be able to say “Well, that shit’s over now, Bush is gone, there’s a new sheriff in town…”
And before. Five of the terrorists involved in the first WTC attack are in prison and will die there. Four terrorists with ties to bin Laden who were involved in the embassy bombings are serving life terms. Four Saudi nationals who set off a bomb outside an American military training center in Riyadh were arrested and beheaded by the Saudis. Clinton would have killed bin Laden in Afghanistan with the missile strike he ordered, but that bin Laden made a last-minute change of plans.
The thing is, before Bush we didn’t hear much about the operations. Data were gathered, and when there was enough it was acted upon. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn’t. But we didn’t have catch-phrases (TWAT/TWOT) or people bragging about how we almost got bin Laden. (At least not as much as in the past several years.)
In my opinion I think it’s better to do things quietly. I’d rather not have A Title for… well, TWOT, and constant Terror Level Burt and Terror Level Ernie. I’d rather not have an administration that purposely tries to scare people. And then suggest they go shopping or take a nice vacation.
And another thing: ‘War’? It seems to me that terrorists are criminals, not soldiers. It makes as little sense as the ‘War on Drugs’ or the ‘War on Crime’.
EDIT: While I was typing two people posted the ‘War’ thing.
:dubious: I doubt we ‘had the sympathy of the entire world’ even as the twin towers were still smoking rubble. And doubt we would have held such tenuous ‘sympathy’ regardless of what we did. YMMV, but my own travels through Europe before we invaded Iraq (hell, before we did anything in Afghanistan) has memories of such ‘sympathy’ in the form of (to paraphrase) ‘you deserved what you got’. Hell, wasn’t there a poll (in Germany IIRC) showing that some large percentage of their population was convinced that our own government did it? I believe this was also before Iraq. VERY sympathetic. And while other countries mouthed ‘sympathy’ for what happened it was pretty clear that their people weren’t fully on board with those sentiments.
By the time we engaged Afghanistan it was clear that such a, um, wellspring of ‘sympathy’ as much of The World™ had toward us had pretty much evaporated. Granted, Iraq didn’t make us any more popular, but I seriously doubt had we left it at Afghanistan the outpouring of wuv towards the US would have kept flowing in…
They simply spring out of the ground fully equipped, trained, fed and ready to kill? They need no funds, money, equipment, exploding vests or leather trimmed copies of the Koran?
I’d say any time you are shooting at people who are trying to kill you or your civilian population that the line between what is or isn’t war gets a bit blurred.
:dubious: Why? Why does it have to be all one thing or the other? There is a role for both intelligence, spies, etc…and for the military as well.
I agree that the key is cooperation of both nation states and the local populace though…and I think this is something Bush et al has singularly failed miserably at. While I doubt we could have kept all that sympathy and good will, I think we COULD have done a lot better post 9/11 to form a coalition of nations to seriously go after the terrorists and hit them where they live. I think this would still have involved our regular military, or at least our special forces in conjunction with the Air Force and Navy.
Hopefully we can do that. But I wouldn’t hold my breath for us to suddenly forget about our military and go to intelligence and spy games only…ain’t gona happen whether it’s Obama or McCain in the drivers seat.
If you are aware of it way say such an inane thing then? It’s pretty much implied when someone says ‘War on Terror’ that they don’t mean the emotion.
Of course it’s a brand…every war, conflict or large scale human endeavor generally gets some kind of brand. What of it? That doesn’t make it any less real…and acknowledging that reality doesn’t mean you support Bush.
Why? What possible difference does the phrase make??
Bush will be gone in less than 6 months. The war on terror(ism) will continue long after we have shaken the dust of his presidency from our boots. I don’t think the phrase matters all that much in the long run…it’s just a phrase. The reality is all that death and destruction stuff…
Why, those sneaky Yurpeen bastards, with their “candle light vigils”. Good thing *you *weren’t fooled, huh?
Not the point. If they are drawing logistical support from people based in Hamburg, we can’t hardly carpet-bomb it, as we might in a state to state military conflict.
Painfully obvious. But it isn’t about their tactics, its about our* response* to those tactics.
Sort of along the lines of those folks who saw various Arab citizens dancing in the streets and burning American flags and figured this was a representative sample of the population at large, ehe?
Well, aside from the fact that we don’t carpet-bomb anymore, I suppose it’s true enough that we wouldn’t be sending in a Marine division to Hamburg. By the same token I think you understand that not all terrorists set up their training camps or supply depots in major European cities. Some probably do, mind, but some are out in the middle of no where. Even your Llama Obama concedes that he may need to send in the military if those terrorist types get froggy…
True enough…where we differ is just what responses should be on the table and how they should or could be employed. This discussion is moot afaiac at this point anyway (aside from the silly semantics discussion that the OP was going on about) as we have already committed our military to not just Iraq but Afghanistan as well, and I don’t see any way we’ll be getting away from that any time soon. We ARE fighting terrorists (as well as insurgence and gods know who else) in both of those places…so, the the catch phrase that has upset the OP has become reality (if it ever wasn’t), at least for the foreseeable future anyway.
I have to question your memories. As I recall, pretty much every government and people were supporting the United States. Even people like Fidel Castro and Muamar Ghadaffi publically stated they were on America’s side for this one. People were wondering what position Saddam Hussein would take (as I recall, he gave an equivocal statement in support of the terrorists).
As far as sympathy from Europe is concerned, I think the vast majority of the people here abhorred the attacks - they still do - and also supported in a general sense (before there were specific plans) that the US struck back militarily. However, this did not lead people to retroactively condone all of US foreign policy prior to 9/11. So while I don’t think the general opinion was that ‘you had it coming’, there certainly were a lot of people here who thought that US foreign policy during the cold war years and afterwards had contributed in a significant way to inciting the type of hatred of the US that terrorism feeds on.
Perhaps, but in most respects it is not a military problem and cannot be dealt with by military solutions, as we should have learned by now. The label “war” is highly misleading and pernicious, almost as much so as WRT to the “War on Drugs.”
And what’s even more pernicious is referring to it as the “Long War,” implying a Cold-War-level open-ended commitment but without the Cold War’s implicit victory scenario.
I have witnessed a lot of trends in human aggression over the years since 9/11 and it has changed my perspective substantially. I used to have a philosophy, which I believe is still the majority, that you should kick the ass of anyone who attacks you.
However, I have since been the target of individual hostility (I was bullied/threatened by a coworker until I had to quit my job for the sake of safety!). Being frustrated that I did not get to see any justice, or comeuppance, I felt somewhat entitled to take action to counter their aggression. But, having been exposed to that personality for so long, I was fully aware that hostile personalities seek opportunities to attack people. I walked away from that situation appearing defeated, but thrilled that the aggressor felt victorious. He would no longer seek to attack me, because I did not retaliate.
Instead of perpetuating the cycle of aggression, I disarmed evil itself by responding in the opposite wasy, peacefully. I responded to assault by walking away. I like to think of myself as a small-scale Gandhi. Yes, to this day, I would love to see karma do its thing, but it is not my job to enforce it. It was this personal experience that completely changed my political view on the war.
Terrorists see their attacks as a counter-attack, and when we respond to that with a “War on Terror,” we are only recharging the cycle and justifying their attack.
The way to defeat terror is with resilience. The aggressor’s best moves are nullified/disarmed when the target stands up and celebrates the ineffectiveness of the attacks. So, rather than a “War on Terror,” I’d rather see a “Nullification of Terror.” Violence is just a waste of resources.
We should have responded to the attacks by spending our money on aid to countries which need it. That would have neutralized the adhesive on the “infidels” label.
I think you should have learned by now that pursuing the problem primarily by diplomatic and law-enforcement measures (as was done in the Clinton years) cannot work either.
Indeed, if we aren’t bringing all of our resources to bear on this problem, we aren’t doing it right.
I was traveling around the world just before 9/11 and for about a year and a half afterwards, but before the invasion of Iraq, I encountered almost nothing but sympathy from everybody, even Muslims, although that was in Tanzania, which outside of Dar es Salaam, seemed no different then any other part of Africa.
I find the wholesale abridgement of civil rights to be completely ridiculous, and I am more than happy to risk some minor league terrorist attacks in order to restore a sensible respect for the constitution. I will be seriously bummed when and if there is a nuclear weapon/dirty bomb smuggled and detonated in the USA or any where else on the planet. Frankly, I kind of suspect that it may happen, but I doubt that Homeland Security has any clue about preventing it in any rational fashion. Fuck if it does any good confiscating my notebook or preventing me from bringing a 12 ounce can of coke onto a plane. I’m saying it here, I have actually inadvertently carried on all kinds of illegal crap on on airplanes (well liquids and a Swiss Army knife). I’m no criminal, but clearly the TSA security is an absolute sham.
