The War on Terrorism is the Correct Label

[Bob's World]

While I believe the acts much more a "crime" than an act of war, I believe that states should exercise extra-judicial authorities in responding to such crimes. Any trial would be either a travesty or a farce. We know AQ did it, so go out and punish AQ. That does not mean "declare a war" on them, or issue warrants for their arrest, trial and possible punishment if proven guilty. There is a middle ground, more like how Israel relentlessly, and without fanfare, hunted down and terminated certain Nazi war criminals.

We need to be pragmatic. Anytime a state adopts a program of punishment that is as hard on the taxpaying citizens as it is on the criminals it seeks to punish; and equally, is of a design that really does little to resolve a problem and in many ways makes it worse (think "war on drugs", "war on terror", and probably a few of the other pseudo-wars as well) it is bad policy.

AQ is the symptom. Put a death warrant on the symptom. That done, now stop and think about what the roots of the problem are that gave rise to those symptoms, that allow an organization such as AQ to have influence, that fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East, that have so damaged US reputation in the same region in increasing degree since a peak of positiveness at the end of WWII and design new policies for more appropriately engaging that important region of the world. Waging a war instead only serves to distract from the critical tasks, and to overly focus on military actions over civil actions.

Being a nation that operates under the rule of law does not mean that we are a slave to the laws that are currently on the books. We could have written new laws to support what we needed to do that would have met much broader approval than our decision to employ existing laws in the context of war. The current laws we operate under are wholly inappropriate and illogical to the problem we apply them against. They guide us into programs of actions that make the problem worse as often as they help.

Its like we needed to play a game of soccer, but the only rule books avilable were for Chess and American Football, and we resigned ourselves to having to pick one to follow. We should have just written rules for soccer that fit the game and go play.

[Dayuhan]

For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs

Nobody who was paying attention took that rationale seriously.

AQ is the symptom. Put a death warrant on the symptom. That done, now stop and think about what the roots of the problem are that gave rise to those symptoms, that allow an organization such as AQ to have influence, that fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East, that have so damaged US reputation in the same region in increasing degree since a peak of positiveness at the end of WWII and design new policies for more appropriately engaging that important region of the world.

It has yet to be demonstrated that the root causes of AQ's war on the US are the same as those that "fuel the widespread revolutions sweeping the Middle East". I have yet to see it convincingly argued that AQ's war on the US was a reaction to American policy. The assumption that this is the case seems to me a very shaky basis for policy.

Addressing root causes is never a bad thing, but you can't address them unless you have a clear idea of what they are and a concrete, realistic plan to alter them. Do we have either?

I would be very hesitant to draw a parallel between AQs war and the troubles in Ireland. The similarities seem rather superficial and the differences very profound.

I agree, vehemently, that the term "war on terror" is absurd and should be retired.

I also agree that the string of attacks that culminated an 9/11 were not attacks on "freedom" or "democracy".

It's possible that for the people who carried out the attacks, "an external enemy was... a unifying way of addressing some of their own frustrations". I don't think that was an issue at all for the people who provided the planning and support that allowed the attacks to happen.

[boobaloo]

I agree, vehemently, that the term "war on terror" is absurd and should be retired.

Let's not make "War on terror" politically incorrect phrase . Terror is a real threat and it can't be ignored but at the same time we need to adrress issues of disgruntled few.

[Bob's World]

Let's not make "War on terror" politically incorrect phrase . Terror is a real threat and it can't be ignored but at the same time we need to adrress issues of disgruntled few.

To declare a war on a tactic, or even a small club of men who wish to do one harm through the application of that tactic, does far more harm than good. It causes one to lose perspective; perspective on the true danger of that "threat." Not everything that threatens us is a threat to us, at least not an existential threat. However, we can in many ways become an existential threat to our own well being through the pursuit of excessive and poorly conceived responses to such problems.

No, "war on terror" is a horrible phrase and concept. It misapplies the term "war" in ways that have led us to excessive approaches and abuses of the sovereignty of others that are in fact "legal" under the term. Legal does not ensure that something is also Just or Right. It also has served to elevate a tactic and those who employ such tactics to a level of importance far in excess to the actual risk they pose to our nation and our populace.

"War on AQ" is not much better.

[Ken White]

Chris jM:

"To identify logic to strategic actions of many players in recent times (America being but one) I imagine that you are making assumptions and deductions. For example, you were told that intervention into Iraq was necessary because of WMDs, whereas my small populous get the line that commitment to Afghanistan is necessary for democracy/int'l security/stability to prevail.'

In order, Yes, but more deduction than assumption and that overlaid with some knowledge. For the WMD bit, see Dayuhan's response. Can't speak for other nations but in the US, it appears only some of our pathetic news media took that seriously -- though a good many of the left leaning spouted it as a slam to the Bush administration. We get the same bit of Afghanistan -- don't know about En Zed but here most snicker.

"Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency. "

I do not wonder; that's a hard truth engendered by soft politicians who try to be all things to all people and who will avoid reality if at all possible in order to present a vision of good governance. When you sell myths, you start believing them...

Fuchs:

"I still kept my fingers off the hottest topics... "

Yes you did -- and we're quite proud of you for doing so.

Bob's World:

"Being a nation that operates under the rule of law does not mean that we are a slave to the laws that are currently on the books. We could have written new laws to support what we needed to do that would have met much broader approval than our decision to employ existing laws in the context of war. The current laws we operate under are wholly inappropriate and illogical to the problem we apply them against. They guide us into programs of actions that make the problem worse as often as they help."

I couldn't agree more. Don't know what you've done about it but I consistently vote and work against incumbents in an effort to send a message to politicians that their venality needs to be reined in a bit. It should also be noted that not only those laws but our habits and proclivities lead us to to inappropriate responses. So to do our capabilities...

All that can be fixed and you'll not see change of any magnitude until all three issues are addressed.

"Its like we needed to play a game of soccer, but the only rule books avilable were for Chess and American Football, and we resigned ourselves to having to pick one to follow. We should have just written rules for soccer that fit the game and go play."

Yep, we should have -- but as I have to keep reminding you, the American political milieu is not capable of or inclined to do that for several reasons that cannot be simply wished away.

You can write about what should happen into eternity but until you can address / accept / adapt to that reality, you'll see no differences. You also should pay heed to Dayuhan's response...

JMM:

"Good point ...."

Indeed.

And that is what this thread is really about...

[jmm99]

In her comments (7 Sep 2011) imposing a 25-year mandatory minimum sentence, Judge Colleen McMahon said:

"The essence of what occurred here was that a government, understandably zealous to protect its citizens, created acts of terrorism out of the fantasies and the bravado and the bigotry of one man in particular and four men generally and then made these fantasies come true," she said. "The government made them terrorists. ... I am not proud of my government for what it did in this case."

If this judge truly believed the "essence of what occured here" (that ... "The government made them terrorists"), then the courage of her convictions ought to have compelled her to find that the defendants were entapped as a matter of law and to dismiss the charges.

Confusion, inconsistency or hypocrisy as to "terrorism" ?

Regards

Mike

[Ken White]

Whatever it is, there certainly is a lot of it going around.

[Fuchs]

We know AQ did it, so go out and punish AQ.

The very idea of justice is to avoid exactly that.

The U.S. believed to know a lot...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Maine_%28ACR-1%29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident


Opinion is not a satisfactory criterion for negating persons' right to live. You need more. Like a fair trial, for example.


Besides; where's the evidence that links today's "AQ" franchise-takers to the 'original' crime? I thought masterminds, helpers, financier etc are all dead or captives. The only links seem to be ideology and the (loose) organisation. Would you accept being trialled for murder when grabbed by a foreign power because someone in the U.S. Armed Forces committed murder in Iraq?


The Western civilization has developed a sense of justice and sets of procedures to seek justice that are at odds with your statement.
Feel free to follow your belief, but don't expect to get away unscathed, unsanctioned if it's adopted as national policy. Getting away with something in the UNSC does not equal getting away with it without sanctions. The whole AQ mess is pretty much sanctioning for much lesser actions long ago.

[jmm99]

from Chris jM
Essentially, I wonder if the topic here is less the accuracy of words and more about how we are governed and led, and about how the governing elite in a democracy establishes support for and sells their plans to their constituency.

Regards

Mike

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

Opinion is not a satisfactory criterion for negating persons' right to live. You need more. Like a fair trial, for example.

Germany seemed to have a difficult time with respecting a persons' right to live and fair trails up until 1945 (to exclude the occupied eastern portion of Germany that got to experience a little Soviet Utopia for nearly half a century). In its case it took a severe case of Götterdämmerung to finally knock most of the martial spirit out of it, and now the Germans seem to get along so well with others.

AQ and the Taliban seem to need a bit of their own Götterdämmerung to calm them down and make them play well with others.

While the US certainly tries to impose its will on others, we at least try not to do so in a genocidal fashion.

[Fuchs]

Germany seemed to have a difficult time with respecting a persons' right to live and fair trails up until 1945 (to exclude the occupied eastern portion of Germany that got to experience a little Soviet Utopia for nearly half a century). In its case it took a severe case of Götterdämmerung to finally knock most of the martial spirit out of it, and now the Germans seem to get along so well with others.

AQ and the Taliban seem to need a bit of their own Götterdämmerung to calm them down and make them play well with others.

While the US certainly tries to impose its will on others, we at least try not to do so in a genocidal fashion.

Tell the Seminoles.
Oh, wait. Hmm, blame the Canadians.


Your version of German history is the comic book version. I doubt that the average coal or metal worker had much "martial spirit", ever.
In fact, I doubt that "martial spirit" had a significant role at all.
I do so in part because Germany was essentially for 43 years in a row in continental peace after 1871 (supposedly its most militaristic period!) and in part because we rebuilt a pretty much respected military within about ten years ('54-'64) after supposedly losing most of that spirit.


Besides - others having done a mistake is no excuse to repeat it or something similar: It's a lesson that should be learned and understood!

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

the Cherokee, Sioux, Lakota, Cheyenne, etc… and remind me the part of US History where the US Army acted like so many Einsatzgruppen during our movement west? And no, I don’t blame the Canadians; we took the land by conquest. No apologies, it was that kinda century, the old 19th.

Spare me please Fuchs, but then again 5,820,960 is just a statistic, according to Remarque. And as to your innocent “average coal or metal worker:” I’ll grant you they were probably non-martial, and also very non-aware as they blithely ignored the goings on at Bergen-Belsen, Bernburg, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenbürg, Kaufering, Mittelbau-Dora, Neuengamme, Ohrdruf, Ravensbrück, Sachsenhausen. All we’ve got is Guantanamo, should I feel cheated?

While we were marching ever westward quelling those pesky Redmen and wiping out their way of life, the Germans were busy bringing Schleswig and Holstein into the Teutonic fold and clearing up those minor border disagreements with Austria and France, with that first victory march down Les Champs-Elysées.

While the US adventure in the Philippines was not without its bloodshed and atrocity, let’s not forget Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft für Südwest-Afrika, the Schutzgebiet Deutsch-Ostafrika, Kamerun, and Togoland. I’m sure both the Maji Maji and Herero have fond memories of the kind German occupation and view those years as ones of Utopian peace and prosperity.

Yes, the Germans had a nice peaceful stretch there from just after the kicking of France’s ass, and very gently occupying the Alsace-Lorraine, to the willful violation of Belgian neutrality. However, in the German Army’s defense, I do not buy most of the stories of German troops committing atrocities in Belgium and Luxembourg, most smack of propaganda.

Certainly the Germans had some internal difficulties with Weimar trying to stave off the Spartakusbund, Bolsheviks, and hyperinflation, but at least most of the deaths were German, well except for those Friekorps “peacekeeping” activities in the Baltic and Silesia. Ernst von Salomon does a nice job recalling the soft ministrations of the Eiserne Brigade on the Slavic people.

Then came 1933 and the slippery slide into the horrors perpetrated by a nation of morons who seemed eagerly to dance to the tune of an Austrian Bohemian piper. You should be proud!

Yes, Fuchs, I have several shelves filled with the comic book versions of German History. But it seems you not only have the comic book version of American history, but the comic book one of German history as well. Seems you think the German people have very little blood on their hands outside the “aberration” of 1939-45.

While you certainly are free to bash the US as much as you want, when you want to take on the air of moral superiority it helps if you actually have some moral high ground to stand upon when you look down your nose at us.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.” ~Joe

[Fuchs]

Maybe you should try to read more sensibly. You might spot relevant words such as "continental" in critical places, or even read till the last line and learn about the key meaning of a forum post.


Btw, by the time of the Holocaust, the average German worker was either in military service or working 60+ hours/week. How much time is left for caring about politics and incredible rumours after working 60 hrs/week (breaks not counted) and having a wife, several children plus getting awake at night quite often because of air raid alarms?

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

First, I missed that key word. Well the US had essentially 102 years in a row of “continental” peace after 1899, until that day in September 10 years ago reset the clock. So there.

Second, your last line subtly implies that the US is repeating the Holocaust, or something similar. I don’t think we need to learn many lessons from the German experience, since most humans, and the majority of Americans, respect the sanctity of human life. What we do understand though, is that one doesn’t erect an entire infrastructure dedicated to the elimination of human life. Well, that is erecting it between working 60 hour weeks, having a wife, several children, plus getting awoken at night quite often because of air raids? Or did all those camps just show up one day? That's right it was all the SS's fault.

I like the “incredible rumours” part. Are you a Holocaust denier, Fuchs? Sorry, but your excuses are pretty thin to cover for “average” Germans exhibiting a huge amount of moral cowardice.