The War on Terrorism is the Correct Label

[Ken White]

But when I read this today I had to agree completely. Particularly in regards to 9/11 being much more a crime than an act of war (one must take into account the nature of the actor, as well as the nature of the act when making such an assessment);

Possibly true on the crime bit. It is certainly arguable. It is also irrelevant. The international criminal justice system was and is no more prepared to deal with non state actors flying airplanes into buildings than was or is the US DoD. Anything done would have been ad-hocery to the tenth power and would have been of marginal value with all sorts of cock-ups. As, indeed, was the case...

I'd also note that if it was accorded status as a crime, implied is capture and trial of the perps -- that would have been a real circus.

The only really effective response would be to track down and kill all those involved and their families unto fifth Cousins or thereabouts and the sooner the better. Rightly or wrongly, we do not operate that way; thus any action would have been of only marginal effectiveness and all things considered, the military was in a better position to take some sort of action than was law enforcement -- that's why they got the job. The facts that several pre-emptive efforts had been mounted but cancelled at the last minute by vacillating politicians and that both law enforcement agencies and the armed forces had adequate warning of the likelihood of such attacks but were ill prepared is an indictment of those Politicians and our ponderous political (and military...) system -- it is also reality.

Make no mistake, in the US, something had to be done simply because that's the way -- wrongly but universally -- we operate; the Pols must be seen as doing something -- even if it is wrong as is usually the case...

and also in regards to the illogic of going into Iraq. I have never understood that one from the moment the first snowflake of "start thinking about Iraq" drifted down to my work station in the Army AOC from Secretary Rumsfeld's stand up desk.

I'm surprised that a Stratagerist doesn't understand that. Not agreeing with it is one thing, not understanding it is another. It wasn't illogical, it resulted from flawed thinking in some aspects but there was a sound logical basis.

The need to be seen doing something to effectively respond to probes from the ME over almost 30 prior years; doing that without greatly disturbing world oil trade; the geographic centrality of Iraq; its size and ease of access by air, sea and land; the pariah status of its leader; base locations the US has long wanted in the area (for what reason is a different question...); halting the conversion of international oil trade from dollars to Euros, disrupting the French, German and Russian economic hegemony in the area and returning it to a UK /US fief; disrupting the EU Constitutional process -- literally dozens of good reasons. Shame about the terribly flawed execution. That, however was the fault of the US Army, not Bush or Rumsfeld.

Flawed execution does not denote an illogical effort. The fact that it was rushed was due to US domestic politics. Bush believed something needed to be done, he accepted the dippy neocon plan and had it modified to suit his purposes -- do something significant to get the attention of folks in the ME (in contrast to his four predecessors who swatted flies and as opposed to Afghanistan which is not part of the ME; Afghanistan was do not attck the US on its soil, Iraq was do not attack US interests anywhere...), do it in order to lock in his successor, do that in the first term just in case he did not get reelected, do it to spend lots of money to also hog-tie said successor...

One can disagree with any or all that but none of it is illogical. Though any or all can be 'wrong' in the view of some.

Nah, it was logical, just not done very well -- yet more examples of how the US domestic political scene totally drives our foreign policy and how the US Army isn't quite as good as it likes to say it is (I think it knows better but it cannot say that).

[Chris jM]

One can disagree with any or all that but none of it is illogical. Though any or all can be 'wrong' in the view of some.

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. It seems that we all assume realism occurs behind the scenes, yet idealism is all that is preached to the masses (of course it's a little more blurred than that, but for the sake of argument I'd suggest that this generalisation is more or less correct).

I don't think that the US is alone, either - Stratfor has done some recent articles on the German actions in the Eurozone crises, and alleges that Berlin is trying to increase her control over the Euro block but cannot/ will not speak in those terms.

Heading back to the opening posts, the term 'war on terror' can only be described as an opiate for the masses, rendering the complexities of geopolitics as part of the mythic good-v-evil struggle that is as easily retweeted as the central plot of any of the Star Wars movies.

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.

[Fuchs]

I tend to prefer "Phony War on Terrorism" or "Stupid War on terrorism".

Because well, you wouldn't attack Saddam and side with his Kurdish foes if you were waging war on terrorism. The Kurds were the only ones harboring terrorists, after all.

Same for Florida - and I don't mean a flying school. It's well-known that there are extremist exile Cubans who fit the "terrorist" label if you look at them with open eyes.

Then there are the domestic right wing terrorists who are being vastly underrated as a threat in comparison to foreign terrorists. (So maybe "terrorism" isn't the dominant characteristic?)

Maybe I should mention the fact that the U.S. is now fighting together with Libyan rebels, some of whom were apparently once handed over to Libya as terrorists?

Or maybe it should be called "war with terror", for the permanent media bombardment with terror topics qualifies as terror itself, even though it free rides on others' violence?


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

[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.

[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!