Yes, America, We're In a "War on Terror"
In the 24 hours since we released the Winter 2008 issue of Democracy, there's been a lot of discussion over my ending essay about the debate over the term "War on Terror." Many have agreed with the points I laid out, some have disagreed, but this is clearly a debate we need to be having.
I hope you'll read the whole essay, but the takeaway point is this: Yes, we are in a "War on Terror" -- just not the one that either George Bush or some his critics are talking about. The fact of the matter is that, in the 21st century, "war" is no longer just about the clash of armies, it is about the conflict of ideas and values (similarly, "peace" is no longer just about ending military battles, as we see this week with the thrilling news of my old boss, Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize). Similarly, "terror" is not only about terrorism - the "terror" we are fighting against in this conflict is also the everyday terrors of despair and despotism and degradation in countries around the world that end up driving people into the arms of terrorist fanatics. Taking on these threats needs to be part of the war we're waging.
Just because George Bush hasn't fought this battle, just because he's used the "War on Terror" as a bludgeon to attack domestic political opposition, just because he's made friends with dictators like Hosni Mubarak and Pervez Musharraf when he should be declaring them our enemies, just because he has taken us on the tragic detour of Iraq, just because he's sacrificed the goodwill of all nations and the leadership of the Free World, just because he's failed to hold America out as a special nation that doesn't torture its prisoners and that shuts down the world's Abu Ghraibs instead of running them, just because he's neglected to stand with those spreading democracy and prosperity to the world's darkest corners does not mean that we can walk away from the very real battle at the heart of the War on Terror.
What I propose is a new kind of foreign policy approach -- one geared to a world where the threats we face (such as climate change, international terrorism, epidemic disease, and endemic poverty) know no borders, where the solutions to these challenges require more than government action, and where, for the first time, most people live in democracies. That means we can no longer just speak to other governments and heads of state and ambassadors. It means we need a foreign policy that speaks directly to the people of the world, wins them over to the side of America and our international vision, and offers them hope for a better future.
Some neoconservatives -- like Norman Podhoretz, the author of World War IV -- have tried to conflate the War on Terror with the War in Iraq. (BTW: check out Anne-Marie Slaughter's devastating take down of the neoconservative worldview and her stirring progressive internationalist alternative). As many have pointed out, that is completely wrong. But lately, some progressives have fallen into the same trap -- applying everything that is wrong with the War in Iraq to the unrelated War on Terror. Some progressives -- such as George Lakoff, John Edwards, and Joe Klein -- have adopted the dangerous idea that the War on Terror is nothing more than a Republican talking point or that we are not really at war. But beating back the evil ideas behind the terrorist threat will take more than the low grade law enforcement action promised by some Democrats -- a kind of "War on Drugs" on steroids. It will mean a concerted effort to win the admiration and allegiance of ordinary people around the world -- by our deeds and not just by our words. That is the kind of war we fought and won in the Cold War. And that is a war worth waging -- and worth winning.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"It will mean a concerted effort to win the admiration and allegiance of ordinary people around the world -- by our deeds and not just by our words. That is the kind of war we fought and won in the Cold War."
Wow! - by this standard, U.S.actions in implementation of Bushite policy have been an even greater example of wrong headed bungling than the occupation of Iraq.
This is one of the reasons I so like Dennis Kucinich's concept of a Department of Peace. I think it is more powerful and more effective to be for peace and healing and ending poverty and injustice in the world than to be against the small segment of crazy people who cause most of the violence and those like Bush, Cheney and many other world leaders for whom war is a mix of profit-making activity and ego trip.
On 9/11 there was a brief moment when the world really WANTED to pull together. I think that desire still exists if we change our goal from killing one another to helping one another. Waging peace is so much more effective than waging war (which only feeds the beast you are allegedly trying to kill).
There's a Native American story about the grandfather who tells his grandson about the two wolves that live inside him, one good and one evil. When the grandson asks which one is stronger, the grandfather replies... "the one you feed."
This mythical War on Terror is like everything else George has done in the last 7 years. A cruel joke! One that was done to enhance his image not solve the problem. He has done nothing for terrorism but to create them hand over fist. No doubt enemies who are going to haunt us from now on. You don't cure the terrorism problem by starting a war. That only creates them. I could have been impressed if he had done like President Clinton did when the first World Trade Center was bombed he let the FBI go after them (that's what they are trained to do). He didn't go off the deep end and start attacking countries he suspected were harboring terrorist's. They are in jail now too and have been for several years. But, No! Bush had to made a big show of fighting terrorism with his 'War on Terror'. I find myself doubting he even knows what a terrorist is. Until it became convenient he ignored al Qaeda and Osama both. Terrorist's are a loose knit group of people who share the same ideology and use terror as a weapon to get their point across. So how how does one fight an idea by invading a country and starting a war? You don't it's a lost cause.
theres always been a war on terror as you define it. the problem is by calling it a war, you reduce the ways in the majority of people's minds that we call deal w things.
a war on drugs, racism, inflation, poverty, ideas cannot be won. a war on bacteria cannot be won. battles can be won in all these arenas, then the the Situation can be Managed.
this ain't braveheart or lord of the rings. we don't have good and evil on the battleground facing each other in kilts.
we don't declare victory with these problems and go home. the marshall plan is the important part. if we can skip the"war", all the better...
d
How can the USA do good in this world when it is led by officials elected byy the amount of money they have and/or collect. This you call a Democracy? They represent large corporations, like Oil companies, Pharmaceutical companies who have lobbiests who write the legislation for Congress and the administration. Who are we kidding?
What I have been told for years now, is that
the next war will be fought and won without
firing a shot.
If you take the tillions of dollars we will owe
to China and Saudi Arabia for the two current
"wars", and the fact many countries now own
controlling stock in big American companies,
I would say the idea is pretty dead on.
We need to have some major clean-up in the
way Washington does things. Then we can work
on getting the rest of the world onboard.
Andrei-A well written article.
Ask me about terrorism! In January 1992 I was kidnapped, beaten,tortured and held hostage for eleven terrifying days by Chechen rebels with a link to early Al queada operatives. With the help of the FBI,CIA,KGB and the Australian Federal authorities the first ever open rescue collaboration between the US government and the "former" KGB took place and made world headlines. My kidnapping and rescue could have provided clues to those in high places as to the nature of the terror threat to come (9/11), however NO ONE sat up and took notice.
I am lucky to be alive-there are cases we never hear about. Most western country inhabitants do not even realize that there is a terror cell network close by in their own backyard! The time for action is long past due.
Yvonne Bornstein
www.yvonnebornstein.com
Doesn't it say somewhere in the Bible, "By their works ye shall know them."?
For a lesson in the above, take another look at the first Star Wars movie. What did the Empire build? What did their tools look like? What did the Imperial Guard uniform look like?
(Isn't it weird, in this "Christian" nation, to often be the only person in the room to recognize heresy and/or just plain-old evil, anti-social, behaviors?)
History suggests that America has a tendency to aid and abet those who would otherwise be Democracy's natural enemies when we feel threatened.
This is the case now; right-wing idealogues run amok amongst us, and as our Constitution is attacked and some new form of wanton criminality is exposed almost daily we condone their actions and smooth our consciences with half-truths centered around "But in time of war...".
We have risked a lot in this "war"; for the first time in our history, the enemy of Democracy that we went to bed with has done and is doing far more damage to America and Democracy than the external threat that played the role of the shotgun at our wedding.
Admirable idea and even as little as seven years ago it would havee been possible but there has been a lot of bloody water under the bridge during that time and the U.S. no longer has the moral standing in the world to make that new foreign policy work. It will be many decades before America regains its soul.
We live in an amazing time of information and access to every single world event, but we are terrorized by the media every day. In the news we hear alerts about incoming storms or weather fronts that will "kill" us. We hear every detail about wars in Africa and the middle east. We hear when a murder takes place thousands of miles away from us or a child is abducted. We hear about foods that ( could ) kill us toys that ( could ) hurt our children. We hear stories that are non stories that have a question mark tagged on the end like. "Could your small appliances be exposing you to radiation or could you be poisoning your family by feeding them bacon? We are glued to the TV to see the blow by blow of a trial or investigation taking place. Worst of all we are terrorized by our government to hide from our own shadows so that they can control us. Fear is a great tool to conquer people. We are being duped by this government and media to be afraid all the time. I like that I can glean what I need from the news, but I resent the way we are being used. Frankly I don't care if there is a shark attack off the coast of Australia. I live in the mid west of the United States. Our news consists of eight hours a day not to mention the all news stations. Most of it repeated and repeated over and over until you want to implode. News flash........could the stress of the news be killing you? Film at eleven.
I agree with your noble aims but I disagree with the way to get the message across.
The problem with this reinterpretation of the term is that it is highly nuanced. You needed several paragraphs to explain it. In this age of sound-bites the nuance is lost.
So when you say "War on ..." people miss the nuance and just expect war - and they know what war looks like: its bombs and missiles and air strikes and lots of shooting.
But what you mean has nothing to do with bombs and guns.
So isn't the nuance a little too clever?
"War, what is it good for?" It strikes me that use of the term "war" to describe challenges posed by those small groups who use violence as a tactic serves more to muddy the waters than provide a framework within which those groups can be dealt with effectively.
Call it a literalist point of view if you wish, the fact remains that the selection and organization of effective strategies to counter the actual threats does not benefit by reference to an unrelated type of conflict.
To take an extreme example, if we really had launched a "War on Poverty," for example, we would have launched the full weight of our military against the forces that promote poverty, such as exploitative corporations and business people. The 82nd Airborne could easily smash the likes of IBM and Dow-Jones with massed tanks, artillery, and overwhelming numbers of trigger pullers.
That's a ridiculous prospect, of course, but no more ridiculous than the conception that we can effectively deal with the real problems presented by terrorists by assigning an inappropriate label.
Are we, as a nation and a society, so bereft of imagination that we can't even come up with a descriptive name or phrase for anti-terrorist activities that is more appropriate than "war?"
Obfuscating the language through the misuse of terminology to create an inappropriate emotional impact doesn't strike me as a very useful effort.
The War on Terror is merely a political slogan designed to extract more money from the US Treasury for the military industrial complex and dupe the general public into letting the President have war powers in order to subvert the Constitution.
So far it is working well. The Liar King and the Prince of Darkness salute you the proletariat.
Andrei Czerny is exactly right. The stage in history has arrived where all the evils of the past centuries are coming home to roost! The next war, The Thirld World War, is already well in progress. It is a war against the effects that centuries of social injustices have been accruing. John Paul II described the social inequalities created by capitalism as against human dignity. All you have to do, is to read Sollicitudo rei socialis, Laborem exercens, and Redemptor hominis. At the Creation, the earth was given in possession to all. Today, there are few megabillionaires, while millions upon millions are dying from hunger! The land, given by God to all, is owned by a few Bill Gateses, Buffetts, Slims Helus, and the Russian oligarchs! In Brasil and Argentina, the land is owned by a few latifundia owners, Otto bembergs and the likes. In Kazachstan, 16,5% of national wealth is in a single person's hands. Millions of people are beginning to revolt at a system that oppresses them - the unbridled capitalism and its illegitimate child - the free market laws. The U.S. still doesn't get it that the free market is not an instrument of justice, and that justice is far more important, than the free market! But the fact is: the free market system is no longer helping the poor. Rather, as happens with all cancers, the free market is already gnawing at its source: the ruthless capitalism that gave it birth! The war we are now in, is a war of compensation for the excesses of a social system run amok - the capitalism that no longer serves all!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
