4 ms·

The trouble with this article, besides arguing that this sort of behaviour is ever OK, is that it presupposes a war that is not actually happening. The "War on

The trouble with this article, besides arguing that this sort of behaviour is ever OK, is that it presupposes a war that is not actually happening. The "War on Terror" is an election slogan, not an actual war. At best it is a series of criminal investigations. How very Orwellian to call it a "war."

lukifer 13y ago
This is, and has been, the real issue for the last twelve years. Try these on: War on Battle. War on Murder. War on Explosives. War on Guns. They don't really stand up to scrutiny. War has historically been against a nation-state, or possibly a land mass or ethnicity. And there is clear endgame: surrender by recognized leaders, or unequivocal military domination. But terrorist cells have no leaders, and cannot surrender en masse. And the only way to dominate them militarily is to dominate the entire globe. The "War on Terror" is not a war. It is declaration of ownership, that says we can deploy military might whenever and wherever we want.
- shpxnvz 13y ago
  I'd say the War on Terror has a lot in common with the War on Drugs. Neither have concrete achievable goals, neither has a well defined "enemy" and both tap into deep-seated fears of the voting public. Those characteristics make them great vehicles for political manoeuvring and expansion of government spending and powers. And this is why I think neither will ever end; I could not see any politician willingly throwing away such a tool. I mean, look at the War on Drugs... we've been "fighting" for over 40 years and are no closer to an end. Look at what we've lost already to the War on Terror, then try to imagine what we will have given up 30 years from now.
  - lukifer 13y ago
    I highly recommend Kevin Simler's "Consciousness: An Outside View" for a richer take on the politics of drugs: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/07/01/consciousness-an-outside-view/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/07/01/consciousness-an-outsid... (Obviously, The Wire also.) But yes, both the WoD and WoT employ similar tactics: disproportionate power and violence under the guise of safety, while downplaying the human and financial costs to a broader public who is mostly insulated from the reality of the situation. In both cases, I don't think the motivations for doing so are singular; there's a little racism in there, a little classism, a little jingoism, a good helping of perverse financial incentives, and perhaps most insidiously, Just Because We Can. (See "Lord of War" or "Thank You For Smoking": people like doing what they're good at.)
kzrdude 13y ago
It's got the price tag of a war. It trivializes the notion of being at war.
weland 13y ago
The War on Terror is very much like the invisible dragon in the closet. I can almost picture the discussion: Me: Ok, ok, so you're at war. Is this a civil war? This Other Guy: No, no it isn't. M: Ok, so you are at war with someone. TOG: Yes! M: And... who are you at war with? TOG: Terrorists! We're at war with terrorists! M: Fair enough... so where's their army? TOG: Ah, no, see, this is kind of tricky. This is an unusual enemy. His army can be everywhere! M: Ok, but you aren't fighting them where they might be, you have to fight them where they are. You can't do much war otherwise... TOG: Well yes, but you can't just wait for them to pop up and blow up your brains. You have to be everywhere! M: So then, if you're everywhere, you will always have someone to fight with. TOG: Yes! And he's definitely going to be a terrorists!
nooneelse 13y ago
For a good long while, starting in 2002, I tried to convince people to adopt and promise to use the term "criminal mass murder conspiracies" (CMMC) in lieu of "terrorism". Dinner parties, discussions in bars, whenever the language of the topic came up I flogged that point. I don't think I got a single convert even among people who liked the point I was making. "Terrorism" is a memorable and virile meme. I never really decided to stop flogging that point. But I haven't in years. Maybe I'll start up again. Maybe people are more ready to hear it. Perhaps you would care to take up the term too?

lukifer 13y ago

This is, and has been, the real issue for the last twelve years. Try these on: War on Battle. War on Murder. War on Explosives. War on Guns. They don't really stand up to scrutiny. War has historically been against a nation-state, or possibly a land mass or ethnicity. And there is clear endgame: surrender by recognized leaders, or unequivocal military domination. But terrorist cells have no leaders, and cannot surrender en masse. And the only way to dominate them militarily is to dominate the entire globe. The "War on Terror" is not a war. It is declaration of ownership, that says we can deploy military might whenever and wherever we want.

shpxnvz 13y ago
I'd say the War on Terror has a lot in common with the War on Drugs. Neither have concrete achievable goals, neither has a well defined "enemy" and both tap into deep-seated fears of the voting public. Those characteristics make them great vehicles for political manoeuvring and expansion of government spending and powers. And this is why I think neither will ever end; I could not see any politician willingly throwing away such a tool. I mean, look at the War on Drugs... we've been "fighting" for over 40 years and are no closer to an end. Look at what we've lost already to the War on Terror, then try to imagine what we will have given up 30 years from now.
- lukifer 13y ago
  I highly recommend Kevin Simler's "Consciousness: An Outside View" for a richer take on the politics of drugs: http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/07/01/consciousness-an-outside-view/ http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/07/01/consciousness-an-outsid... (Obviously, The Wire also.) But yes, both the WoD and WoT employ similar tactics: disproportionate power and violence under the guise of safety, while downplaying the human and financial costs to a broader public who is mostly insulated from the reality of the situation. In both cases, I don't think the motivations for doing so are singular; there's a little racism in there, a little classism, a little jingoism, a good helping of perverse financial incentives, and perhaps most insidiously, Just Because We Can. (See "Lord of War" or "Thank You For Smoking": people like doing what they're good at.)

kzrdude 13y ago

It's got the price tag of a war. It trivializes the notion of being at war.

weland 13y ago

The War on Terror is very much like the invisible dragon in the closet. I can almost picture the discussion: Me: Ok, ok, so you're at war. Is this a civil war? This Other Guy: No, no it isn't. M: Ok, so you are at war with someone. TOG: Yes! M: And... who are you at war with? TOG: Terrorists! We're at war with terrorists! M: Fair enough... so where's their army? TOG: Ah, no, see, this is kind of tricky. This is an unusual enemy. His army can be everywhere! M: Ok, but you aren't fighting them where they might be, you have to fight them where they are. You can't do much war otherwise... TOG: Well yes, but you can't just wait for them to pop up and blow up your brains. You have to be everywhere! M: So then, if you're everywhere, you will always have someone to fight with. TOG: Yes! And he's definitely going to be a terrorists!

nooneelse 13y ago

For a good long while, starting in 2002, I tried to convince people to adopt and promise to use the term "criminal mass murder conspiracies" (CMMC) in lieu of "terrorism". Dinner parties, discussions in bars, whenever the language of the topic came up I flogged that point. I don't think I got a single convert even among people who liked the point I was making. "Terrorism" is a memorable and virile meme. I never really decided to stop flogging that point. But I haven't in years. Maybe I'll start up again. Maybe people are more ready to hear it. Perhaps you would care to take up the term too?