Is the "war" analogy correct when discussing terrorism? Does it help or distort

  • Thread starter Thread starter clarityofasilhouette
  • Start date Start date
C

clarityofasilhouette

Guest
thinking/countering the issue? The attacks of September 11 2001 led to the proclamation of a “war” on terrorism. Some think the metaphor is misleading and unhelpful, while others think it is quite appropriate.
Does it help in countering the problem?
What are the shortcomings and implications of framing the response to terrorism as a “war”?
What do you think?
 
Believe me, when you look at the evil, fascist, racist, terrorists they know they are at war with Israel and the USA and all those who help Israel. We either recognize the fact or ignore it. If we recognize they are at war with us, we are better able to keep it contained to the middle east and those countries which foster terrorism. If we fail to recognize it, they will come here again and attempt to terrorize us away from the alliance we have with Israel. You choose.
 
Clearly not. "war" is a hyperbolic political term. It has little meaning any more, like the "war on drugs"...

Real war is something that is waged against a known enemy, that is a foreign state. Terrorism is not an enemy, it's an abstract idea that isn't even easy to define.

If you want to know the difference between a real war and a phony war, just ask yourself: If the enemy surrendered, who would sign the surrender treaty?

A state has a head who can sign the treaty and end the war.
Terrorism has no head of state. Therefore there is nobody to surrender. ie: there is no actual way to declare that the war is over.

Terrorism would be much better treated as a criminal/law enforcement problem. If it were, then we'd have found Osama Bin Laden by now and brought him to justice. But since war requires an actual state, Bush chose Iraq, which has nothing to do with terrorism.

That's fine with him, he doesn't want to get Osama. He needs Osama out there to inspire fear in Americans to keep up support for his real goal: The endless occupation of Iraq to secure cheap oil and reduce OPEC's strangle hold over us.
 
I think a lot about the war is misleading, it's similiar to two previous wars that were also the brainchilds of prominent american neoconservative politicans, the war on drugs and the war on communism- all three of these wars have a lot in common with each other, and little in common with other wars- they do not involve time limits or set objectives and they seek to battle with violence, cultural trends that derive from a more complex set of issues which are wholly ignored in the face of 'zero-tolerance' catch-crys, shocking propaghanda and extreme violence.
All of these wars have been tools for commercial interests of individuals and have been the vehicles for which to instigate monopoly's of corporate wealth, the concept of war is useful because it makes people scared, and thus more apt to change, especially to their liberties and to the damages inflicted on the 'enemies' that they would otherwise protest.

In the case of the war on terror, what is amazing is the total lack of awareness the war required as to the current systems in place to battle terrorism. Terrorism, has always existed in america, as well as in france and england before that where America inherited it's legal system. Terrorism is age old especially in democracies- all the age-old mechanisms to fight domestic terrorism were in place, (they just happened not to have happened on 9/11, but that's a whole nother story!) and they were all thrown out with the fear of 9/11- scared out of their minds, the american people actually agreed to the most unorthodox and fascistic approach to fighting terrorism like it was trying to put down domestic unrest in a militant state- why? Because people instinctively recognise that in times of self-defence, in times of war, extreme measures are called for. But this was never war, this was a heinous crime by a select group of individuals and that is how it should have been treated.
 
The War on Terrorism is similar to the War on Drugs. Both wars are not about what they are supposedly about. They were both just devices to justify more power for government, a deterioration of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights.

Bush was totally wrong to fight a -military- war against what is actually a crime, not an invasion by a nation. The proper response to 9/11 would have been more of a police action, to find the people responsible and, in Bush's brave words, 'bring them to justice'. Instead Bush used 9/11 the same as he used every crisis and exigency of his time in office, as a justification to do what he wanted to do to begin with.
 
war ... is negotiation by other means.

2... 9/11 was not started by us... and the terrorism war began for the united states by the enemy...

3 ... there was no negotiation... hense no chance appease ...

4 .. the japanese attack on US soil.. provoked a terrible response... and the al quada attack... likewise shud get a very terrible response... bush said... we will go to any lengths to catch those who did this attack....AND those who support them... ( i agreed with that)

5... Iraq war is negotiation by other means... not a war on terrorism... Iraq has the chance to rise back... stronger then ever... except the muslim people of that nation... want to bleed and they dont want to bleed alone...
 
any time we declare war on anything but a country that is truly asking for it, we end up losing it..

The shortcomings is that a person like W, who cares little for his country and will do anything to make his buddies rich, combined w/an ignorant populas, leads to Iraq

I think that anti-terror operations should be the same as pre-9/11...our best special ops quietly going in and killing the leadership w/little or no fanfare. and IF we are hit again, the country of origin should be rolled over like fresh pavement, and ONLY that country
 
It poli-talk. It gives the impression that we are doing something more about terrorism than what we have been doing. We have used the phrase before....war on poverty, war on drugs, war on famine, war on crime, blah blah blah. Clearly you can not have a war with a word so it is a war against the very concept....which means nothing. We flex our muscles a bit and in the end nothing changes. Do we still have poor people in the US? Crime? Drugs? is there famine in the world?

It's basically a way to incite people without admitting failure on the part of the government.
 
Back
Top