AviationBanter - View Single Post

**Ed Rasimus[_1_]**

On 16 Aug 2006 08:21:40 -0700, wrote:

The war on terror is a false metaphor that has led to counterproductive
and self-defeating policies.

The term 'war on terror' is not a metaphor. It is exactly what it says
it is. It is not euphemistic phrasing to denote something else. But,
that's the first of a plethora of mistakes in the post.

Five years after 9/11, a misleading figure
of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war fought on several
fronts -- Iraq, Gaza, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Somalia -- a war that has
killed thousands of innocent civilians and enraged millions around the
world. Yet al Qaeda has not been subdued; a plot that could have
claimed more victims than 9/11 has just been foiled by the vigilance of
British intelligence.

And, the foiling of the recent plot in the UK would hardly be
interpreted as a failure. And, al Qaeda is virtually bereft of
recognizable leadership.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" metaphor was uncritically accepted
by the American public as the obvious response to 9/11. It is now
widely admitted that the invasion of Iraq was a blunder. But the war on
terror remains the frame into which American policy has to fit. Most
Democratic politicians subscribe to it for fear of being tagged as weak
on defense.

Still not a metaphor, but it would be hard to recap the debates in
Congress, the media and the UN as "uncritical acceptance." And, while
few would consider the removal of Sadaam and the Baathists as a
blunder, there is some debate on the follow-on to the war. Democracy
isn't viewed as a positive by all, including some Democrats.

What makes the war on terror self-defeating?

And, "When did you stop beating your wife...?"

· First, war by its very nature creates innocent victims. A war waged
against terrorists is even more likely to claim innocent victims
because terrorists tend to keep their whereabouts hidden. The deaths,
injuries and humiliation of civilians generate rage and resentment
among their families and communities that in turn serves to build
support for terrorists.

Yep, you always get a lot of support for those who recklessly endanger
you will hiding in your midst and committing unspeakable acts against
forces which both you and the terrorist know will retaliate.

· Second, terrorism is an abstraction. It lumps together all
political movements that use terrorist tactics. Al Qaeda, Hamas,
Hezbollah, the Sunni insurrection and the Mahdi army in Iraq are very
different forces, but President Bush's global war on terror prevents us
from differentiating between them and dealing with them accordingly. It
inhibits much-needed negotiations with Iran and Syria because they are
states that support terrorist groups.

Well, you list a series of groups that are all Middle East muslim
jihadists. Doesn't require too much differentiation there. And, there
seems to be ample evidence that the administrations of both Iran and
Syria aren't very eager to conduct "much needed negotiations."

· Third, the war on terror emphasizes military action while most
territorial conflicts require political solutions. And, as the British
have shown, al Qaeda is best dealt with by good intelligence. The war
on terror increases the terrorist threat and makes the task of the
intelligence agencies more difficult. Osama bin Laden and Ayman
al-Zawahiri are still at large; we need to focus on finding them, and
preventing attacks like the one foiled in England.

The war on terror is not a territorial conflict, but an ideological
one. No one challenges the value of good intelligence--except those
who grumble and gripe about the Patriot Act, cell phone record mining,
and financial tracing as somehow infringing on the "rights" of the
terrorists.

While Osama hasn't been found, one could argue that he has been
effectively neutralized. And Sadaam, Ouday and Qusay, and al-Zarqawi
area pretty much history Along with the majority of the original card
deck and a few others that popped up along the way. There have been a
lot more hits than errors in this game.

· Fourth, the war on terror drives a wedge between "us" and "them."
We are innocent victims. They are perpetrators. But we fail to notice
that we also become perpetrators in the process; the rest of the world,
however, does notice. That is how such a wide gap has arisen between
America and much of the world.

'Tis better to be respected than to be loved. The motto "no better
friend, no worse enemy" is a good one. The US hasn't established
colonies or co-opted territory since the Spanish-American war. Those
we fought and defeated are rebuilt and leading the globe in
technology, commerce and living standards. We can't guarantee
elevation to an American standard of living, but we pretty much do
guarantee a drastic improvement to life under Sharia.

Taken together, these four factors ensure that the war on terror cannot
be won. An endless war waged against an unseen enemy is doing great
damage to our power and prestige abroad and to our open society at
home.

So, not waging the war and turning the other cheek after 9/11 or 7/7
would achieve exactly what? They attacked us before the war on
terror--will showing weakness and resignation cause them now to love
us?

It has led to a dangerous extension of executive powers; it has
tarnished our adherence to universal human rights; it has inhibited the
critical process that is at the heart of an open society; and it has
cost a lot of money. Most importantly, it has diverted attention from
other urgent tasks that require American leadership, such as finishing
the job we so correctly began in Afghanistan, addressing the looming
global energy crisis, and dealing with nuclear proliferation.

What a load of tripe!

With American influence at low ebb, the world is in danger of sliding
into a vicious circle of escalating violence. We can escape it only if
we Americans repudiate the war on terror as a false metaphor. If we
persevere on the wrong course, the situation will continue to
deteriorate. It is not our will that is being tested, but our
understanding of reality. It is painful to admit that our current
predicaments are brought about by our own misconceptions. However, not
admitting it is bound to prove even more painful in the long run. The
strength of an open society lies in its ability to recognize and
correct its mistakes. This is the test that confronts us.

Not responding to an attack and the continued demonstration of
attempts to again attack is not the way to survive.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com