Was declaring a "war on terror" a bad idea?

[gerryhatrick]

"War on Terror": good decision?

Thursday, 01 June 2006

What was Bush thinking when he decided to declare a “war on terror”? Was it like the loony left tells us…he wanted perpetual war so he can control the masses through fear and patriotism? Or is it like he says…something self-apparent which has been thrust on him and all freedom-loving people??

snip

I hope America finds some clarity and definition for it’s foreign policy soon. I think the political slate needs cleaning and some new definitions and priorities need to be floated. One man has decided how the world should be viewed for too long, and in spite of declared good intentions this world view nurtures fear and anger, and that’s no way for Americans to live their lives.

http://allpoliticsnow.com/content/view/20/1/

Well, he's the decider so ah guess that's that...war on terror it is.

[newbie]

Was declaring a "war on terror" a bad idea? Not when you want to rule by fear.

[gerryhatrick]

Was declaring a "war on terror" a bad idea? Not when you want to rule by fear.

Indeed. The article touches on that.

[sharkman]

If terrorists start blowing up U.S. embassies and attacking ships, and after failing in an attempt to fell the twin towers finally get it right, War on Terror sounds about right. But then I think terrorists are bad guys.

[crazymf]

The USA needs an enemy to make the economy thrive. There's no way to be 'good' if there's no 'bad' out there somewhere. Let's face it, the US was wallowing in obese people addicted to television and had no real purpose in life once the cold war wound down. There were no goals, nothing to push against, no timetables to keep. There was no reason to keep a big military and spend all that money on it.

Life was boring.

It's like the whole country was on hold, stuck in a rut. Clinton in office.

Cue 911.

[lost&outofcontrol]

The "war on terror" is a great excuse to enact draconian laws as well.

Librarians forced to shush about Big Brother's watching!

[gerryhatrick]

If terrorists start blowing up U.S. embassies and attacking ships, and after failing in an attempt to fell the twin towers finally get it right, War on Terror sounds about right. But then I think terrorists are bad guys.

Are you suggesting I or the article is suggesting terrorists aren't bad guys?

Did you even read the article?

I think the central point is why does a war on terror need to be declared (causing some of the problems addressed in the article) as opposed to a war on explicitely identified terrorists?

The terrorists you refer to are Al-Q, correct? So, what would be wrong with a war on Al-Q?

Maybe you don't think Al-Q are bad guys, huh?

[Temagami Scourge]

Launching a war on Terror was not a bad thing.

Expanding the "War on Terror" was a horrible miscalculation on the part of the U.S. I said long ago that the U.S. needed to keep its focus in Afghanistan, and use that country as a shining example of what could be achieved with proper support.

Now Afghanistan is starting to erode because the U.S. is too focussed on Iraq. Our own army has sustained more casualties since January than we did when we first went in.

Apparently, Mrs. Bush forgot to teach Junior that old adage that "you finish what you start before starting something else".

Pull out of Iraq and go back to Afghanistan. that is where bin-Laden and pals are.

[crazymf]

War on Terror....hmmm.

To call this a 'war' insinuates what? If the USA loses, they're toast? Are they fighting for the survival of the nation? Is this similar to WW2? I don't think so. The USA can pull out of the whole middle east tomorrow. They hold all the cards.

In the grand scheme of things, Bush should have called this the ' Continuing PITA against Terrorists'.

If this was a real war, life would be much different and it would have been over long ago. USA can go around slapping peepees in the middle east, but they have to never blink while Russia and China watches.

[Charles Anthony]

The "war an terror" is a make-work program for the American military industry and to support commercial interests. Period.

All of the other details are smoke and mirrors to keep us confused. The military is just a special form of bureaucracy, plain and simple. All of the ugliness is the price the current American administration and military elite are willing to pay (or more accurately, make their electorate pay and other people suffer) to keep their jobs and support their commercial interests domestically and abroad.

People make the "war on terror" more complicated than it actually should be. They are being fooled by the smoke and mirrors.

In Canada, we have smoke and mirrors to obfuscate our own make-work programs too. The big difference is that our make-work programs are not as violent. We tear up perfectly fine roads to repave them again before tearing them up again so that we can finally repave them. We have bureaucrats who do nothing. We have national, provincial and municipal advertizing campaigns to "educate us" about the current pie-in-the-sky issue of the day. Imagine all of the public servants in Canada being vastly military. We would declare war against a nebulously vague chimeric enemy too.

Canadian governments are generally led by people whose election campaigns were funded by drug companies or teachers' unions or some other generally non-belligerent special interest groups. Compared to the U.S.A., our politicians are not surrounded by family and friends with proud military experience and heritage and interests.

"I think the central point is why does a war on terror need to be declared (causing some of the problems addressed in the article) as opposed to a war on explicitely identified terrorists?"

Correct. The convenience of not explicitly identify an enemy is that it gives you smoke and mirrors behind which the state can hide (or fool the population about) its actions.

People who are opposed to the "war on terror" should draw some consolation in the fact that it is sending the U.S.A. into bankrupcy. Once they no longer are able to finance their "military industry", this "war on terror" will end.

Unfortunately, the "war on terror" will likely be replaced by something else. An unemployed military will soon become restless.

[GostHacked]

This is simply the best 'terrorism' thread we have had here on the forums. It clearly shows that some of you who supported the war before are now not so sure. Or have flipped to the other side that it was not a good idea.

C.A.

The "war an terror" is a make-work program for the American military industry and to support commercial interests. Period.

Sooooooooo true. Those military/defence contractors are making record profits. Lockeed for example

T.S.

Pull out of Iraq and go back to Afghanistan. that is where bin-Laden and pals are.

Or he may be hiding out in Pakistan who is known to harbour terrorists. (Mushareff admits they have an issue with domestic terrorism)

CrazyMF.

The USA needs an enemy to make the economy thrive. There's no way to be 'good' if there's no 'bad' out there somewhere. Let's face it, the US was wallowing in obese people addicted to television and had no real purpose in life once the cold war wound down. There were no goals, nothing to push against, no timetables to keep. There was no reason to keep a big military and spend all that money on it.

Life was boring.

It's like the whole country was on hold, stuck in a rut. Clinton in office.

Cue 911.

You are not crazy at all dude But that sums it up quite good.

[Leafless]

The U.S. had no choice but to declare 'War on Terror' which was paralizing the globe and brought the air-line industry to a stand still after 9-11.

An attack of this magnitude represents an 'Act of War' especially when the terrorist all originate from Arab countries.

This basically was an attack on 'capitalism' itself ( twin towers symbol of capitalism's success, according to terrorist) and since this is the way of most of the world must be protected.

http://www.slate.com/id/1008290

[Charles Anthony]

"paralizing the globe and brought the air-line industry to a stand still after 9-11."

Just the airline industry?

"twin towers symbol of capitalism's success"

What about the third tower, Tower 7, that mysterious crumbled that afternoon but was not hit by a plane?

Take a look at the footage:

http://www.wtc7.net/

Intriguingly, the evidence of debris was rapidly destroyed.

[Riverwind]

This basically was an attack on 'capitalism' itself ( twin towers symbol of capitalism's success, according to terrorist) and since this is the way of most of the world must be protected.

Give me a break. The attack was on the US and the US alone. Bin Ladin's stated objective is to get the US out of Muslim countries and replace the US supported dictators with a Islamic gov't similar to Iran. If Bin Laden achieved that objective then he would be happy. The idea that muslim radicals seek to 'destroy our way of life' is nothing but propoganda dreamed up by politicians looking to get re-elected.

[theloniusfleabag]

One cannot declare a war on 'terror'. Or even 'terrorism'. 'Terror' is an abstract idea, and it has no 'front line', nor finish line.

Declaring war is different than that. What a declaration of war upon an idea means, (especially if you send troops to a specific region to 'do war' upon said abstract idea) is that you will bend the people of that region or area to your will, or you won't. Further, since it is a war on a non-manifest entity, there can never be a final measure of success (or failure).

There hasn't been another 9/11 (yet), is that enough to declare victory? Most intelligent people would say, "Nonsense".

Rightly so.

By declaring a war in which there can never be victory, nor defeat, that means that above all, you cherished warring, and what only it itself can offer, as the highest value.

"Offers dictate actions".

The US is trying to use a very simple (but in my mind , flawed) formula to acheive their end.

Delare an open-ended war on an idea (of those that disagree with them to the point of using 'terror')

Declare that they, and they alone, will wield the world's largest and 'most overwhelming' source of military power, to the point where they 'reserve the right' to pre-emptively attack anyone who may come close.

Then, assume you will win by default.

Of the two possible headlines, or statements to the press, that may ever come to fruition, the only one in the future that I would expect to read is not 'We Won!',

but rather "Ooops".

[gerryhatrick]

The U.S. had no choice but to declare 'War on Terror' which was paralizing the globe and brought the air-line industry to a stand still after 9-11.

An attack of this magnitude represents an 'Act of War' especially when the terrorist all originate from Arab countries.

You state something in your first sentence (had no choice but to declare 'war on terror') that you don't support. You say the "act of war" required a declaration of a "war on terror".

Did you read the article? The question posed is why not declare a war on a specific enemy instead of a tactic.

I'll be interested in your response after it becomes apparent you read the article.

[August1991]

If terrorists start blowing up U.S. embassies and attacking ships, and after failing in an attempt to fell the twin towers finally get it right, War on Terror sounds about right. But then I think terrorists are bad guys.

I agree, Sharkman.

One cannot declare a war on 'terror'. Or even 'terrorism'. 'Terror' is an abstract idea, and it has no 'front line', nor finish line.

Declaring war is different than that. What a declaration of war upon an idea means, (especially if you send troops to a specific region to 'do war' upon said abstract idea) is that you will bend the people of that region or area to your will, or you won't. Further, since it is a war on a non-manifest entity, there can never be a final measure of success (or failure).

Thelonious, don't go all semantic on us. Who cares what it's called?

I don't know why the Left insists on looking for other reasons to explain this.

The "war an terror" is a make-work program for the American military industry and to support commercial interests. Period.

That's nonsense. If the US government wants to give money to corporations, why the need for a war? Your argument is just a variation on the idea that wars are good for the economy.

This basically was an attack on 'capitalism' itself ( twin towers symbol of capitalism's success, according to terrorist) and since this is the way of most of the world must be protected.

Give me a break. The attack was on the US and the US alone. Bin Ladin's stated objective is to get the US out of Muslim countries and replace the US supported dictators with a Islamic gov't similar to Iran. If Bin Laden achieved that objective then he would be happy. The idea that muslim radicals seek to 'destroy our way of life' is nothing but propoganda dreamed up by politicians looking to get re-elected.

Then what about Bali, Madrid, London? What about Theo van Gogh, Oriana Fallaci? The term "clash of civilizations" is too strong but in this world, we cannot avoid conflict with Muslim fundamentalists.

----

It's easy to sit on the side and criticize what someone else is doing. To counteract the threat of people like bin Laden, I don't know if Bush Jnr has always done exactly the right thing but the he is fighting the good fight.

[Riverwind]

Thelonious, don't go all semantic on us. Who cares what it's called?

Because the term 'war' is being abused for propaganda purposes. In our culture the term 'war' has special meaning that is intended to mobilize the entire society in an effort to thwart an imminent threat. That is why we have something called the 'war measures act' that grants the gov't powers that it would not have normally.

Dealing with terrorists requires a police - not a military response. In fact, we are actually making the terrorism problem worse by referring to it as a war. Terrorists want to be feared - hearing the leaders of democratic countries stand up and talk about a 'war on terror' gives them exactly what they want.

If we want to win this so-called 'war on terror' we have to learn to treat the terrorist as insignificant gnats who have no power to change anything in our society.

[August1991]

Riverwind, the Americans use the word "war" in a different way from the rest of humanity. They have wars against poverty, illiteracy and drunk driving. Link.

Dealing with terrorists requires a police - not a military response.

It requires both. Removing the Taliban required the military. It requires good intelligence and police work to stop others.

We faced down the Soviets. The Israelis have faced this kind of threat for the past few decades. Carlos the Jackal is now just another criminal in a French prison.

Terrorists want to be feared - hearing the leaders of democratic countries stand up and talk about a 'war on terror' gives them exactly what they want.

Riiiight!

It is true that terrorists want to provoke fear but I don't see how politicians can avoid this when they try to stop the terrorists.

BTW, this debate has been made ad nauseum in Quebec concerning Trudeau and the FLQ. Trudeau was accused of making the FLQ a greater threat than they were in fact in order to frighten people away from separatism. IOW, there is no end to hypothesizing and analyzing when it comes to this subject.

[KrustyKidd]

If we want to win this so-called 'war on terror' we have to learn to treat the terrorist as insignificant gnats who have no power to change anything in our society.

They don't wish to change our society but rather theirs. The US is used as a tool or reason to unite and rally around in order to cement their cause. The object being a unification of the entire Muslim world ujder one group and religion - conservative Wahhabism. In this situation, the terrorists are not the end but rather the part we actually come in contact with. The power behind the Terrorists and the part that has to be changed is the movement itself and, in order to do that, you have to change their environment. The one that provides little hope and outlets for people to find meaning in life other than tho join a racial, cultural and religious movement rather than lead a life of enrichment and self fulfilment.

Hence the War on Terror is not only a military fight but a political and cultural one as well. Note the emphasis on democracy and creating the contitions for as well as aid, economic empowerment and such.

Dealing with terrorists requires a police - not a military response. In fact, we are actually making the terrorism problem worse by referring to it as a war.

Uh? I suppose that if the terrorists were all hiding in cities with a police force then it might be. However, given that they are in areas where they might not have working addresses, serving sumonses is rather difficult. Made even more complicated by the fact most of the postmen delivering the documets would be subject to having their heads cut off. Hence, for the most part, a military gets the message across much better. And, delivers the conditions where democracy can take root, a very effective political solution to counter the control conservative Wahhabists use to create the terrorist mentality, and, recruits.

[Riverwind]

Riverwind, the Americans use the word "war" in a different way from the rest of humanity. They have wars against poverty, illiteracy and drunk driving.

The fact that Americans abuse the term 'war' in other situtations does not make it legimate.

It requires both. Removing the Taliban required the military. It requires good intelligence and police work to stop others.

I agree with that much, however, the use of the term 'war on terror' made it much easier to justify the invasion of Iraq. That is why I object to the use of the term 'war' - it allows politicians to justify actions that would not be justifiable in any other circumstance.

It is true that terrorists want to provoke fear but I don't see how politicians can avoid this when they try to stop the terrorists.

Politicians don't need to use over the top rhetoric. They could talk about 'fighting terrorism' or 'preventing terrorism' in the same way we talk about fighting or preventing fires.

[Riverwind]

Hence the War on Terror is not only a military fight but a political and cultural one as well. Note the emphasis on democracy and creating the contitions for as well as aid, economic empowerment and such.

The cultural fight is something that has to go on inside Muslim society. The more the 'west' tries to interfer in Muslim society the worse it will make the problem. If the US really wanted to bring democracy to the Middle East it could have started by pressuring Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The fact that it ignores the undemocratic regimes in these countries while it tries to impose a democracy by force in Iraq simply proves to many people that US only cares about oil and is not really committed to democratic values.

[KrustyKidd]

Politicians don't need to use over the top rhetoric. They could talk about 'fighting terrorism' or 'preventing terrorism' in the same way we talk about fighting or preventing fires.

How about 'The War on Terror'? It is a multi fronted battle against a mentality that uses terror to promote themselves and their objective. The fronts being military, police, intelligence, financial, aid, political, and economic. I prefer the War on Terror as it is well edstablished that this encompasses all of the above. I suppose you could call it the 'activity designed to conduct a multi pronged approach to effect societal changes in areas which either create or aid terrorist activities' but, 'War on Terror' ios so much easier to say and, carries with it an aggressive edge to it that just draws in positive mindedness rather than being wishy washy.

[KrustyKidd]

The cultural fight is something that has to go on inside Muslim society.

Yes. And, note that this did not occur until the US invaded Iraq. Afterwards, the Saudis began to clean house as they knew the US was on the ground and would not leave them out to dry. Ever wonder why Al Queda is so inactive in Iraq? Because they are virtually fighting for their very existance n Saudi Arabia because the Saudis have taken that action. And, the US did pressure SA and SA has begun to make changes.

The fact that it ignores the undemocratic regimes in these countries while it tries to impose a democracy by force in Iraq simply proves to many people that US only cares about oil and is not really committed to democratic values.

Imposing by force????? How about ousting a dictator then providing for freedom to vote in what the Iraqis themselves want? 65% of Iraqis voted and at peril to their lives not from the US but insurgents. So where is this democracy imposed by force?

This simple proof that the US only cares about oil I would like to see given that Bush risked his presidency and the lives of a lot of people to carry out this action. The money it has cost could have easily been used to bribe Saddam to supply the all oil the US needs for decades, at a fraction of the cost. So this particular aspect of the argument is a joke.

[Riverwind]

War on Terror as it is well edstablished that this encompasses all of the above.

It is also a code word that is designed to stifle democratic debate. Anyone who tries to oppose actions taken in this so called 'war' risk being branded as traitors. The term 'war on terror' is nothing but propaganda speak intended to manipulate people - it is not positive minded at all unles you think Orwell's 1984 is a utopian vision for the future.