War on Terror
From RationalWiki
| A War on War |
|
The War on Terror is a phrase coined by George W. Bush's speechwriters, just after the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Bush described the attacks as "acts of war" the following day,[1] but first referred to a "war on terror" in an address to Congress on the 20th.[2]
As much as America may have required such tough talking at the time, living up to the phrase's logic was always going to be like pinning jelly to a wall.[3] History will note that the Bush administration kept pinning away nevertheless.
A study conducted by the Rand Corporation in 2008 determined that 43% of terrorist organizations disband after becoming legitimate players in the political process. Another 40% of them are broken up by law enforcement actions. Ten percent of them disband after achieving their stated goals. Only 7% of terrorist organizations are neutralized by military force in the War on Terror. Yet the US currently spends $2 billion a month going after those seven percenters.
Contents |
[edit] Efficacy
The effectiveness is nil, in the strictest of terms, as "terror" is no more capable of being defeated, than it is of surrendering. Even in the most charitable analysis, the picture can be described as "mixed" at best.
Whilst America got to feel better about itself after kicking some Afghan ass, little else has gone either smoothly or well in the campaign. Al-Qaeda has been deprived of one safe haven, but has already adjusted and regrouped in the semi-autonomous tribal regions of Pakistan, destabilizing both that country and neighboring Afghanistan from whence it fled.10
America's debacle in Iraq is not only siphoning away efforts that might be genuinely used to combat terrorism or terrorists, it is actively generating a new generation of disaffected people - future terrorists.
[edit] The politics of fear
Bush's poll ratings soared in the aftermath of the attacks[4] and he comfortably beat John Kerry in the 2004 election. Cynics have noted that styling himself as a "wartime President" produced a remarkable turnaround in fortunes for a man widely regarded as a dolt, and first elected in the most controversial and divisive of circumstances. Assuming stupidity rather than malice, a simpler explanation runs that fools often choose to meet violence with violence, and that having reflexively adopted such a confrontational posture, the "war" and its rhetoric acquired an idiot momentum of their own. Nor should it be forgotten that the attacks created a sudden policy vacuum that greatly benefited the previously unfashionable neoconservative movement. The Bush administration was clutching at straws, as it were, but found itself instead with a fistful of chickenhawk feathers.
Civil liberties were among the war on terror's first domestic casualties. Unable or unwilling to be seen as unpatriotic, Congress collectively suspended its disbelief and passed the USA PATRIOT Act six weeks after the attacks, with barely a murmur of protest.[5] Congress was similarly pliant as the executive demanded sweeping new powers and privileges in order to prosecute the "war" effectively.
[edit] Justification
A "War on Terror" created several key political advantages for the Bush Administration:
- Enabling an excessive level of executive powers and privileges.
- Showing the American people "we are really doing something".
- Striking fear into the heart of Americans, enabling a successful re-election.
- Allowing the use of the art of distraction ("watch my pretty assistant") while systematically undermining Americans' civil rights.
- Using the same distraction techniques to fill the government with otherwise unacceptable partisans, religious fanatics, and politically corrupt cronies.
[edit] Useful elements in a real War on Terror(ism)
Should the US Government want to really address the problem of terrorism they would:
- Create a no fly list[6] that is actually small enough to target real potential threats, updated frequently enough not to include several of the (now dead) 9-11 hijackers, and detailed enough not to stop children as potential threats.[7]
- Actually spend significant money on "field operations", rather than outing agents.[8]
- Concentrate on known terrorist threats, including Saudi Arabia, a country that not only harbors terrorists, but funds the training of them.[9]
- Realize that terrorism does not grow from nothing. Terrorists have legitimate issues that need to be heard and addressed before the terrorism stops. The "No Talking To Terrorists" policy only causes more animosity from the other side. Working from a platform that they are terrorists "just because" or "because they are evil" or "because they hate us" will never stop the cycle of terrorism.
- Put experts on terrorism and the Middle East into positions of access to the President and Congress. Then listen to them
- Act on all terrorist activities, not just those in politically or economically advantageous areas. Can anyone say "Zimbabwe"? We knew you could.
- Don't elect a President whose family has been heavily financed by the UAE and Saudi royal families.
- Study and implement counter-terror successes, like those in the Philippines, rather than just launching expensive wars against non-terrorist states.
[edit] See also
[edit] Footnotes
- ↑ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010912-4.html
- ↑ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
- ↑ Unhappy America - The Economist, July 26th 2008
- ↑ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/6038436.stm
- ↑ It passed in the Senate, for example, by a remarkable 98-1. votesmart.org
- ↑ http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/10/10/terror.watch.list/
- ↑ http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/08/16/no_fly_list_grounds_some_unusual_young_suspects/
- ↑ http://www.democracynow.org/2005/7/6/karl_rove_again_linked_to_outting
- ↑ Congressional Report on Saudi links to known terrorism[[1]]
