The UK drops the label. There have actually been several moves over the years from within the US bureaucracy to do the same thing. The Republican Party, though, is clearly addicted to the "war" mentality. And when the Democrats were given an opportunity to disavow it, only John Edwards would. It seems to me that few if any policymakers on the Democratic side actually believe that this sort of conceptual framework is a helpful way to think about things, but knowing the right answer to questions is of limited value if political leaders aren't going to do anything about it.
« Al Jefferson's Inefficiency | Main | The Possibly Not Coming Storm »
No More "War on Terror"
01 Jan 2008 02:03 pm
Comments (16)
Markos is using a different instance of your insane Obama-hatred and Edwards-boosterism on his front page right now, Matthew.
Borat's variation was the best one: "I salute your War of Terror!"
But seriously: no one gives a shit what you call it. The only relevant question is what you do. If we called it the "War on Terror" and spent all our energies on alleviating 3rd world poverty, that would be fine. Conversely, if we called it "the International Police Crackdown on Extremism," or whatever, but continued to invade countries, that would be a disaster.
The Blogosphere traffics in words and so it thinks words are all that matter. (Witness the silly kerfuffle over Obama on trial lawyers etc.) Or "policies," which are just many words strung together. But that's all so much nonsense. All that matters is what you do and what gets done.
I'd like to see the idea of having "wars" on things like a tactic, intoxicants, diseases, etc. discredited once and for all, but it's certainly not going to happen in the context of a political campaign.
Actually, Petey, Matthew donated lots of money to Barack and has been a steady supporter for a long time now.
"Actually, Petey, Matthew donated lots of money to Barack"
Two hundred and fifty is "lots of money"? That's dinner for two.
And that was back in Q2 before his insane Obama-hatred and Edwards-boosterism took hold.
It is vital that we win the war on the "war on terror". Supposedly, Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan are going to publish a paper for AEI laying out the meta war, which will require some sacrifice on the part of the taxpayer. For instance, the Weekly Standard needs an infusion of 100 million dollars from the Pentagon to keep up its gallant fight - and victories over such supervillians as Scott Beauchamp show that this is money well spent! It would be nice if the FCC did a little more for Murdoch, too - it is one thing to knock down any law that stands in the way of him buying anything he wants, but that is purely negative support. How about a contract for Tactical Meta-War Management? Perhaps a joint venture between Blackwater and Fox. I'm thinking an initial outlay of say, 3 billion, and we can go from there. As the Committee on the Present Danger puts it in their latest position paper, 'Foaming at the Mouth in Defense of Liberty is no Vice' we have to think outside the box!
I prefer War on Evil, much more fitting.
I'm still waiting for the "War on War."
Now THAT one is REALLY never going to happen!
ehhhh
then why were all the headlines: "$15 BILLION a month for the War on Terror!" ?
who took away my war!?
I kinda concider Edwards the democrats Romney.
Romney was a liberal republican while Edwards was a conservative democrat.
Both switched their beliefs at the same time and did an extreeme makeover.
Both have been caught many times saying one thing to their audience and doing another.
No one knows exactly what it is that either one truly believes. Or if they just go with the mood of a particular moment in time. Whatever is convienent.
Since the definition of Jihad is war to advance Islam, not "lets go out and do something criminal" - few of the terrorists or the hundreds of millions that support radical Islamism from the theoretical to the extreme version of REAL torture, violence and contempt of any secular law consider it criminal activity. Thus the stupid Lefty paradigm of terrorism and straight Jihad being all about misguided Muslim criminals from poor families who abhor their acts - just needing more human rights than Islam has mysteriously avoided giving them for 1400 years and ACLU Jews helping them in court, where true deterrence is established through infidel judicial majesty - is a huge crock of shit. Criminal justice with secular law works only when it is accepted as moral and valid - which it is not by much of the Muslim world. Instead a whole village of Muslims dances and posters and tributes as them being holy shaheeds, to suicide bombers involved in butchering a dozen and a half old Jewish civilians at a Seder Diner.
It is a war.
But not on terror. That is just a tactic.
It is a war on the infidel modern world, and a counterwar against radical Islamists.
Where's the "War on Chris Ford" when you need it?
Thank God we have mighty armchair warriors like Chris Ford on our side.
I pray every day that he doesn't get taken out by a paper cut.
""Actually, Petey, Matthew donated lots of money to Barack"
Two hundred and fifty is "lots of money"? That's dinner for two.
And that was back in Q2 before his insane Obama-hatred and Edwards-boosterism took hold.
Posted by Petey | January 1, 2008 2:30 PM"
You know, when you're trying to convince people that Edwards supporters really are union workers and not just upper-middle class white guys working office jobs who fancy themselves class warriors, saying that $250 is dinner for two isn't your best bet, especially when your every post seems to exist for the sole purpose of boosting Edwards.
The only way to end the 'GWOT' is to impeach both cheney and bush for treason, grand theft, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Comments closed January 15, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
The "war" on terrorism is over. We won. End of discussion.
Posted by Peter | January 1, 2008 2:09 PM