Ehhh...

What about, "There's always been a War on Terror, in fits and starts for hundreds of years? And Sept. 11th isn't sufficient reason to get incredibly upset and paranoid, it should simply be met with smarter national security policies, better domestic spending, recommitment to national values of personal freedom, the eschewing of expensive foreign wars, etc."

Which in terms of what we do isn't significantly different from what you're suggesting here, but doesn't go so far as saying there is no War on Terror.

I think of the War on Terror the same way I think of the War on Crime, or the War on Cancer, or the War on Poverty. As in, they're all pretty serious problems, and "existential" for significant subsets of our population (but not our culture as a whole), and they should be met with planning, resolve, care, etc... (but not neocon lunacy, of course.) You could liken the war in Iraq to the government, upon hearing of an up-swing in cancer deaths, starting to mandate chemo treatments for everyone: a gross over-reaction, whose cure is worse than the disease, etc.

Oh, there you and the crazy left go again, invoking Orwell.

There's also no war on drugs, or poverty, or cancer, for that matter. The mismatch between means and ends proves it! See, if we had our people in charge, it would all be sooo much better.

No; if ran the War on Cancer like the current War on Terror, we'd be forcing kids to smoke a pack a day and feeding them asbestos sandwiches.

Actually, it all depends on what your definition of war is. Is it something we fight without any real end scenario in sight? Are we just throwing war onto any prolonged struggle or conflict? Everytime we say "War on " Whatever, we end up losing because, well, it's impossible to wage a war on an idea, or something that can't really be beaten. Sure, the war on cancer may someday be won, but it's only a war in that we're struggling to contain it.

Anyhow, if we were really fighting a war on terror (which just doesn't logically make sense), then, well, we sure as hell wouldn't be fighting governments and oppressing people. Cause that only creates terrorists. Which might have been the point all along. Viva el rey. or something.

wasting lives we need not waste

I can see why he phrased it that way for the parallelism, but by definition, you can't need to waste something.

You're all correct. It's a war on the self-determination of the Fourth World, a conflict that the US embarked on in earnest in the late 1940s. The Spring 2006 newsletter of the Center for World Indigenous Studies has a spot-on article on this topic.

It does not depend on what "your" definition of war is. War is a defined term in domestica and international law. We were in a "cold war" with the Soviet Union for forty years and everyone knew that the "war" was metaphorical, and didn't imply the very different legal regime that applies when a country is genuinely at war. This isn't Alice in Wonderland where words mean whatever Humpty Dumpty says they mean. If the President says that there's a War on Bologna that doesn't mean he gets to put deli countermen in prison camps without trial.

apostopher, there is a war on now, and it may be aptly called the "War OF Terror". What is the goal? On this, I think you miss the punch line by shifting to decribing the war in Iraq as being "the opening shot in a resource war".

You've got a point, but to expand on part of your post, the real purpose of all of the fear being mongered is to help the Republicans secure a lock on political control, not merely for partisan gain but for the lucre that it puts them in the position of controlling for the benefit of special interests.

Republicans have found that people who are frightened are more likely to follow government "leadership", so the Administration and its supporters have been flogging fear and war like there's no tomorrow. We have fear of terrorists, Muslims, Iranians, Mexicans, China, Russia, Chavez/Castro, "the UN", back-stabbing traitors and gays at home and, not least, fear of "enviros" and other envious countries that want to destroy the American economy and capitalism, and to bring on global government (which is also to be feared because means not merely godless communism but also signals the apocalyse). All of these fears require wars, to which the Republicans are uniquely suited to wage (Dems of course being either back-stabbers or spineless).

And while all of this fear is being peddled, taxes to the wealthy are being cut, "death taxes" eliminated, national assets and pork are being handed off cheap to favored corporate interests, debt limits are blown, civil rights/liberties are being trampled, Congressional checks on Presidential power are being whittled away, the power of the military is being expanded, gerrymandering continues to lock up seats from real politcal competition, Republicans work hard to tweak elections through poll taxes, voting machine placement and numerous and sundry other methods, ...

Even though there is some politcal pushback on Iraq and gas prices, the Republican assessment of how easily Americans and the MSM are manipulated has proven largely correct. It remains to be seen whether the Administration and Republicans will be able to continue to spin their way through the next series of elections, but the rigidities resulting from gerrymandering mean that changes in control of Congress will not come easily.

Regards,

Tom

but by definition, you can't need to waste something

*boggle*

... Anyway, thanks Apostrophe, for saying this out loud, resource war and all.

boggle?

"Waste" carries with it the concept of a lack of necessity. A better phrasing would have been "losing lives we need not lose".

It can in theory be necessary to lose or sacrifice lives in the pursuit of a goal. But, by definition, it's never necessary to waste them.

More evidence that there is no war on terror.

Because I'm feeling my oats this morning:

boggle: Why the need to pick this particular nit?
boggle: "wasted life" - colloq. To dissipate unnecessarily.

Why the need to pick this particular nit?

If you can't pick nits on the Internet, where can you pick nits?

"wasted life" - colloq. To dissipate unnecessarily.

My point exactly.

At a senior service school in the USAF, 12 years ago, a guest speaker said these words: "All wars are about resources. Ideology just provides the justification."

I can't find any evidence to refute his statement.

Aha! So it depends on whether the goal is legitimate or not as to whether the lives are wasted or lost, respectively.

I see we are now in violent agreement, more or less.

It's the G-SAVE.

These two statements:

It's the opening shot in a resource war, and everybody knows it, even if they won't admit it to themselves.

and

We are not faced with an existential threat

Seem to me to be contradictory on their face.

They aren't referring to the same things. *Terrorist organizations* do not pose an existential threat to the United States.

I don't think the struggle for resources represents an existential threat either. We're facing a reduction in our standard of living, not the elimination of American society. But that's another discussion altogether.

The real struggle for resources behind the actions of the Bush/Cheney administration is the struggle over the spoils of the US economy. The supposed struggle over resources elsewhere is a sideshow and a smokescreen.

In a global market economy, it's much cheaper to simply purchase the desired resources than it is to take over and manage the countries that have them. This is axiomatic, and Iraq is proof. If we truly are concerned about China, we'd stop diverting funds from the real economy - funds that could be used for private investment - to the fake, plotically-manipulated military economy.

But having foreign wars is a great way to maintain power by mongering fear while picking the nation's pocket. That's why Republicans are not screaming about the cost of the Iraq war, and in fact are looking to bring us into another war with Iran.

Rumors are flying of Iran supposedly underwriting Hezbollah to stage a terrorist attack during the World Cup, for the unlikely "purpose" of showing Iran's ability to inflict damage abroad. It appalls me to say that I wouldn't put it past our government to be involved in in some way encouraging such an attack, for the purpose of securing a pretext to attack Iran.

*Terrorist organizations* do not pose an existential threat to the United States.

WTF? Or, I should say, WTC?

If you mean that our new Al Qaeda overlords can't force us all to labor in their underground salt mines, well, yeah. They can't occupy us like a conquering army.

But they can blow up stuff we're fond of, like the WTC. And, after they get an Iranian nuke in, say, 5-10 years, maybe a city or two. No, it's not going to happen tomorrow. But global warming isn't going to make the oceans rise 20 feet tomorrow, either.

How many nuclear 9-11's will it take to topple the structure of American society — to threaten us existentially, if you will? I don't know, and I don't want to find out.

You can argue that invading Iraq was not the right response to the threat of terrorism, but 9-11 is prima facie evidence that such a threat exists.

It appalls me to say that I wouldn't put it past our government to be involved in in some way encouraging such an attack

"Encouraging"? Come on, TT, you know Bush is going to actually order the attack himself. Just like 9-11.

GB, no one denies the threat posed by terrorists, however, they do not threaten our existence as a nation, and threats from the disaffected are as likely to be internal as external (McVeigh, Kaczinki, snipers, anthrax?). Threats from disaffected Muslims have been growing for years and are the predictible "blowback" from our overly interventionist and militarized foreign policy. So how do we respond to the threats from the disaffected abroad - by invading and occupying all hostile regimes? What have we accomplished except sowing the dragon's teeth of hatred, and creating just the opposite of our purported objectives? Iraq is now an unmitigated disaster, that has cost us dearly in treasure, lives, reduced good will and leverage, and will continue to cost us for years. Meanwhile, billions are unaccounted for. Tell us all how THAT has enhanced our security. Perhaps Israel is comforted by the prospect of a Sunni/Shia bloodbath, but there is no upside for us.

All we've purchased is a political stick for Republicans to beat and impugn the rest of America while they sully our good name, and a justification for a "long war" that will serve as a continued basis to dump billions down holes and undermine civil liberties at home. You gotta know that the Chinese and Russians are laughing, and dictators everywhere are pleased that America no longer thinks it important to set a good example.

Maybe you can tell us that our policy makes perfect sense, gets a great bang for the buck in reducing the treat of terrorism worldwide, and by going after the dictator whom we knew with certainty had no nukes was the perfect way to dissuade the Iranians from exercising their rights under the NPT?

If you're really concerned about nukes, surely there are other policy options and other risks, such as Pakistan?

As to your question to me, boy I just love your sense of humor. Putting aside policy differences, maybe you care tell me just what it is you think this Administration has actually been above board about in its foreign or domestic policy?

With this Administration, I think there is ample justification to think that the end justifies nearly every means. The initial and subsequent justifications trotted out for Iraq are a joke, and it's clear that the outing of Plame went all the way up to Cheney and Bush (everything's classified, until we choose to declassify part so we can nail someone).

Now I'm not one who favors conspiracy theories, but this is not particularly an administration that cares about the rule of law, from torture to renditions to domestic spying to treating Americans as "unlawful combatants", and certainly doesn't care about the voting rights of those who disagree with it. Why was it that we called off the hunt for OBL at Tora Bora? The bait and switch between OBL and Iraq after 9/11 was blatant to all but idiots. And as to 9/11 itself, yes, it troubles me that apparently there were several war games on that day, and that Bush reading books to kindergartners.

I gather you still don't have a problem with the motives or actions of this Administration, even though so many others on the right do. Perhaps it's your own sanity that you should be questioning, GB.

I clearly said "You can argue that invading Iraq was not the right response to the threat of terrorism, but 9-11 is prima facie evidence that such a threat exists."

Yet your response accuses me of arguing that the war on Iraq was the right response to the threat of terrorism. You do a good job of countering that assertion, but it's not the one I was making.

To be fair, you did spend a little time addressing the point I actually made — that terrorists represent a serious threat to the US — by claiming that, hey, we shouldn't worry about Islamist terrorism because, hey, another McVeigh or Kaczynski could get us, too. I don't consider that to be a serious counter-argument.

No, it's not going to happen tomorrow.

Or probably ever. Iran is still not remotely close to building a single bomb, much less building enough that they feel free to hand one out to somebody else. Nor do we have any evidence that they would.

The USSR, armed with enough nukes to crack the planet in half, plus the delivery system to make use of them, represented an existential threat and we confronted that through diplomacy and containment.

Still, the point is that whatever "war" we are fighting is expressly not a war on terror, nor is such a war even possible. Terrorism is a law enforcement issue, not a military one. Calling it one just allows the GOP to respond to everything with "But we're at war!"

Nuclear terrorism "probably" won't ever happen, because we have no "evidence" Iran would give Al Qaeda a bomb? Oooh, I feel all reassured now. What meets your standard of "evidence" — a copy of Ahmadinejad's to-do list with "Give bomb to terrorists" on it?

Besides, as the lefties used to be fond of saying, one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day.

I am fully confident that Iran would never give Al Qaeda a bomb, since bin Laden hates Shi'ites more than America. But that's really beside the point. It makes no sensse to spend the amount of money, prestige, and human life that we are out of fear of a theoretical worst-case scenario somewhere years down the road that has a vanishingly small possibility of ever materializing.

I do agree with the point that "war" is a poor term to describe the task at hand. War implies constant large-scale military action. It's arguably analogous to the Cold War: We're trying to bring about fundamental change in a region of the world that poses a threat to us.

This time, things are a little hotter, if only because there is no single leader on the other side of the table with whom we can negotiate. But a new term to describe this kind of lengthy, broad-based campaign would be helpful. I don't think our government should have a blank check to do whatever it wants because "we're at war", over the decades it may take to bring political reform to the Middle East.

bin Laden hates Shi'ites more than America

I guess the Shi'ites just didn't have any flashy buildings to knock down, then.

GB,

It would be nice if you would argue with what I have to say rather than with your own constructs of it.

I did not accuse you of arguing that the war on Iraq was the right response to the threat of terrorism - I simply pointed out that invading regimes has hardly proven to be the right policy, and asked if you thought otherwise.

I am happy to see that you now seem to be conceding that it was not. Or do I misconstrue you?

I spent most of the rest of my post addressing your intimation that it was crazy to think that this Administration might act in underhanded ways to achieve unstated goals; I note your failure to respond.

Your final remarks show a troubling lack of comprehension, seriousness or both. I DID concede that terrorism constitutes a threat to the US that must be addressed, while denying that the threat is existentialistic. (You have not clearly stated how you perceive the level of threat.) I certainly did NOT "claim that, hey, we shouldn't worry about Islamist terrorism because, hey, another McVeigh or Kaczynski could get us, too" - what I did was to try to put the threat of Islamic terrorism in the context of other threats that we face: threats from internal and external malcontents, threats from countries like Pakistan that have nukes and delivery systems, threats from growing economic and strategic rival such as China and, last but not least, threats posed to our Republic and to our civil liberties and pocketbooks from within by scoundrels and rent-seekers hiding behind fear-mongering and supposed patriotism. It troubles me that you dismiss as not serious my effort to provide broaden the discussion - it is precisely this lack of context that the Administration has consistently exploited in invading Iraq and in its bluster against Iran.

Of course my point was not a counter-argument at all, since up to now you have made no argument whatsoever other than that we should be very, very worried about international terrorism.

You have provided a little more meat in your dialogue with apostropher. Glad you do not see the struggle in the ME as a war, or justifies a government blak check. In the long-run, what we need to do to to deal with malcontents, at home and abroad, and with threats posed by strategic rivals is to take the same approach we have with our own union and in dealing with the other great powers - try to moderate historical differences and to integrate economically. Islam is a particularly difficult nut, for which patience is essential and aggressive use of the military obviously counterproductive. We should work multilaterally to help these nations develop, based on the rule of law and clear property rights.

As for your other remarks, you must realize how flip and shallow they are. Yes, one nuclear bomb can ruin your whole day, but fear of one nuclear bomb hardly dictates what our policy should be - I presume you do not forget how expensive the fear of mushroom clouds has already proven to be. Care to be a little more specific in what you think our policy should be to Iran - is this another country that we should invade, split up and give the oil resources to someone we think we can control?

As to OBL and flsahy buildings, it just so happened that those he attacked were those of the country with troops throughout the ME, including bases in his homeland; the Shias were not in this position. Of course, now that we've done so well at handing Iraq over to the Iranians, it wouldn't surprise me if al Qaeda decides that the Shias are becoming a more important, and accessible, target.

Tom

Apostropher, I see your post has been quoted by a guest blogger at Steve Clemon's The Washington Note (he's an old Japan hand and a moderate):

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001424.php#more.

Regards,

TT