Taking On The 'War on Terror'

I'm probably preaching to choir among readers of this blog when I say that the 'war on terror'-- or, more specifically, the way it's been executed-- is just another political catchphrase more than an actual war. The Bush administration has certainly treated it that way (ie. using it as an excuse to spy on hippies and scapegoat Arabs and battle Democrats).

Of course, admitting this so that we as a nation can get over our post-9/11 mental disorder requires a national leader to stand up the noise machine. Say it and you will be accused of being a terrorist sympathizer, hating America, and all those other cliches.

But we desperately need someone who will come out and say-- fearlessly-- that, yes there are terrorists in the world and our foreign policy must factor this in, but that this isn't WWIII and that turning our whole system upside down to fight it is counterproductive. We must acknowledge that John Kerry was right in 2004 when he said that "it is not primarily a military operation. It's an intelligence-gathering, law-enforcement, public-diplomacy effort."... and that President Bush only got it right when said, also in 2004, that "I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that the — those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world." He quickly took this back.

I think the psychosis here is so deep, it will be many years before we get there.

One person who is strongly delivering this much-needed message, though, is former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. He writes in a Washington Post editorial that should be emailed to every congressman and senator, the following-

"The 'war on terror' has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche and on U.S. standing in the world. Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us...

...Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants..."

This really sums it up for me. I'll post some more, though-

"But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a 'war on terror' did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. The war of choice in Iraq could never have gained the congressional support it got without the psychological linkage between the shock of 9/11 and the postulated existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction...

...The culture of fear is like a genie that has been let out of its bottle. It acquires a life of its own -- and can become demoralizing. America today is not the self-confident and determined nation that responded to Pearl Harbor; nor is it the America that heard from its leader, at another moment of crisis, the powerful words 'the only thing we have to fear is fear itself'; nor is it the calm America that waged the Cold War with quiet persistence despite the knowledge that a real war could be initiated abruptly within minutes and prompt the death of 100 million Americans within just a few hours. We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself...

He goes on to describe many of the ludicrous 'security' measures we now endure.

He concludes-

"The events of 9/11 could have resulted in a truly global solidarity against extremism and terrorism. A global alliance of moderates, including Muslim ones, engaged in a deliberate campaign both to extirpate the specific terrorist networks and to terminate the political conflicts that spawn terrorism would have been more productive than a demagogically proclaimed and largely solitary U.S. 'war on terror' against 'Islamo-fascism.' Only a confidently determined and reasonable America can promote genuine international security which then leaves no political space for terrorism.

Where is the U.S. leader ready to say, 'Enough of this hysteria, stop this paranoia'? Even in the face of future terrorist attacks, the likelihood of which cannot be denied, let us show some sense. Let us be true to our traditions."

Brzezinski discussed these themes with Bill Maher last weekend.

Time magazine's Joe Klein blogs about this editorial from Jerusalem, where he says he feels its authority. He adds his own personal take on this topic, from that perspective, he adds-

"It is no accident that many of those most anxious to posit the struggle against Al-Qaeda as a 'war,' even a 'World War' were neoconservatives with close ties to the Israeli government, especially when it was run by the right-wing Likud party...

...One aspect Brzezinski doesn't deal with is the domestic cynicism of the 'The War on Terror.' I am quite sure that Bush and Rove--reverse Roosevelts--will be remembered in history for their political use of fearmongering as a bludgeon against Democrats. They had nothing to sell by fear itself....

..The threat is real, and it must be confronted. But by bloating the threat of Islamist extremism, Bush has bloated the importance of Islamic extremists. As a Jew, I am embarrassed by the role that so many prominent Jews have had in empowering the enemy."

Ideally, these common-sense statements wouldn't need to be repeated so much.

In an ideal world, we would move on. But the world is not controlled by idealists.