Time to stop the war on terrorism

April 11, 2002 3:33 PM

Time to stop the war on terrorism says Jonah Goldberg of the National Review.
posted by dagny (28 comments total)

He raises some interesting points, but unfortunately his semantic distinctions would be lost on a lot of people, and aren't necessarily tenable anyway.
posted by donkeyschlong at 4:14 PM on April 11, 2002

"Listening to President Bush chew on his tongue trying to explain why Arafat isn't a terrorist is simply embarrassing."

What is embarrassing, is the fact that no one has had the balls beside Israel to call Arafat excactly what he is under most people's understanding of the word terrorist.
posted by Zool at 4:17 PM on April 11, 2002

Well, I agree with him. The war on terrorism makes as much sense as the war on poverty/inflation/drugs etc. and is a cop out refusal to name our real enemy, thus insuring our inability to 'win' the war. I was all for going after bin bin and his cronies but what I'm seeing in Afghanistan reminds me of our never-ending committment in Korea (it's been 50 years, folks). Our governments appeasment of the Saudis makes us the biggest oil crazed hypocrits since the gulf war for 'freedom and democracy'. I'm sick of it.
posted by Mack Twain at 4:27 PM on April 11, 2002

The article started out fine enough. He mentioned how the War on Terrorism wasn't what it appears to be, which is true. He doesn't clearly define terrorism, however. He only dispels its current meaning, which inevitably begs the question, "What the hell is it then?"

The simple fact is that we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with a brand of Islam.

I don't want a war with the Islamic world.

Reading those two sentences were rather humorous, and essentially proved his hypocritical nature. My biggest problem with anti-religious sentiment is that those in power abuse religious ideals for their own gains. Meanwhile, the religion is portrayed in a negative light. Religion, by itself, is not the enemy. Those who abuse the tenets are.

Listening to President Bush chew on his tongue trying to explain why Arafat isn't a terrorist is simply embarrassing.

I truly wish he didn't pick a side. Whenever people pick sides, especially on a subject as scary as this, they cannot be taken seriously. I've heard too many interviews with citizens on both sides waiting for the violence to end. This conflict is based, IMHO, more on govts./politics than truly religious/human perspectives. Instead of accepting any responsibility, both sides repeatedly point their fingers at each other.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:28 PM on April 11, 2002

"The simple fact is that we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with a brand of Islam. You can deny that, if such clarity makes you uncomfortable. But you cannot deny that a brand of Islam is most certainly at war with us. You can call this brand Islamofascism, radical Islam, Wahhabism, whatever you want — just so long as you remember that they are not Islamofascists because they are terrorists, they are terrorists because they are Islamofascists."

But another simple fact is that we would never declare war on Wahhabism since Saudi Arabia is Wahhabist. The administration consistently avoids the issue that our "friends" in Saudi Arabia follow (or at least pay lip service to) the same ideology as the "Evildoers" in the Taliban and Al Queda do.
posted by homunculus at 4:35 PM on April 11, 2002

After all, we may have killed more innocent people in Afghanistan than al-Quaeda did in the United States as part of our war on terrorism, but that doesn't mean we're morally indistinguishable from the people who hijacked those planes on September 11.

It doesn't? Maybe the neocons are slowly coming around, or maybe this is just their way of justifying the tour in Afghanistan.

He does make a good point, however, when he says that we cannot declare a war on an abstract idea. This is more proof that the word 'terrorism' is becoming meaningless.
posted by insomnyuk at 5:41 PM on April 11, 2002

BlueTrain:
He doesn't clearly define terrorism, however.

from the article:
Terrorism is a means — the intentional use of violence against civilian populations in order to achieve political ends.

That's about as honest a definition as I've read from anyone on the right, considering that definition certainly puts the U.S. in the dock.

Or does calling yourself a freedom fighter automatically absolve you from the laws of man and God?

Only if you're fighting in the interests of the U.S.

Contras, anyone? El Salvador?

The simple fact is that we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with a brand of Islam. You can deny that, if such clarity makes you uncomfortable.

The simple fact is that we were not at war with communism, we were at war with Bolshevism. You can deny that, if such clarity makes you uncomfortable.

Philosophical coherence is like kryptonite to Goldberg.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:45 PM on April 11, 2002

Reading those two sentences were rather humorous, and essentially proved his hypocritical nature.

Only because you stripped out the next sentence:

But I do want a war with anybody who would wage one against us.

In any case, the article doesn't say what the front page post makes you think he was saying. Like donkeyschlong said, he's simply making semantic distinctions, and believes the war needs to continue no matter what you call it.
posted by aaron at 7:05 PM on April 11, 2002

* sticks hand up, agrees with Aaron and the article*

But, then what should we call it?
posted by yhbc at 8:20 PM on April 11, 2002

Reading those two sentences were rather humorous, and essentially proved his hypocritical nature.

BlueTrain, I must be misinterpreting Goldberg, or you, or both, because I'm hearing you both make the same point. From my reading,

I don't want a war with the Islamic world.

is to

The simple fact is that we are not at war with terrorism, we are at war with a brand of Islam.

as

Religion, by itself, is not the enemy.

is to

Those who abuse the tenets are.
posted by delapohl at 8:33 PM on April 11, 2002

His hypocritical nature is to assert that he does not want a war against Islam, but then distinguishes certain terrorists as part of a brand of Islam. Which one is it? Are you implying that a war against Islam is necessary, or not? Because you certainly cannot declare terrorists as a brand of Islam and then, in the same article, state that we're not fighting Islam.

delapohl...his labelling as a brand intertwines religion with politics. I am stating that these bombings, IMHO, are not a matter of religious concern, just as Klansmen in the US do NOT represent Christianity. These bombings are for political gains, nothing more, again, IMHO.
posted by BlueTrain at 9:50 PM on April 11, 2002

Because you certainly cannot declare terrorists as a brand of Islam and then, in the same article, state that we're not fighting Islam.

Why not? There are Islamic fundamentalists whose views may be every bit as extreme, but who don't turn to terrorism, and we are not at war with them. When we hunt down and arrest the domestic terrorists responsible for U.S abortion clinic bombings, we're not at war with fundamentalist Christianity, but we are in a sense at war with those who use a brand of fundamentalist Christian ideology to justify their murder.

I am stating that these bombings, IMHO, are not a matter of religious concern, just as Klansmen in the US do NOT represent Christianity.

It's true, they don't, but recognizing and discussing the tenets of Christianity that are perverted by the KKK, as Islam is perverted by Muslim terrorists, will give you a more complete understanding of why they think and act as they do. Describing it solely as a political act is inadequate.
posted by Ty Webb at 10:50 PM on April 11, 2002

"Terrorism is a means — the intentional use of violence against civilian populations in order to achieve political ends."

I agree. We should cut off all support to both the Israelis and Palestinians until they stop committing terrorist acts.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:06 PM on April 11, 2002

Why not?

Religion, like a gun, is a tool. When someone is shot, we do not blame the gun. We blame the shooter. My logic applies to religion as well. As Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, (soon replaced by television), religion was/is used to establish a peaceful society. A common goal; to find God. If you look at any religion, basic moral codes are all the same. Do you honestly believe that to be a coincidence?

To return to the gun analogy, if you believe that religion is an opiate, then to blame it (religion), over the person, is like blaming the gun for the shooting.

Now, let's bring it back to my earlier comments. I believe it to be hypocritical to brand some terrorism as a type of Islam, but not be at war with Islam. If you label some terrorists as Islamic, you are, in fact, in a war with Islam. My logic is that you cannot blame the tool. You must blame the user, and as I've said before, I blame politics/govts. over religion because politics/govt. have no rules. Their structures/policies are changed to fit the time.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:12 PM on April 11, 2002

If you look at any religion, basic moral codes are all the same.

And this moral code, is the moral code of altruism (self-sacrifice). "Sacrifice yourselves in this life, and you will be.. hmm.. oh yes, you will receive gold and virgins when you die! That's right!" And people believe it! Oh my.
posted by dagny at 12:10 AM on April 12, 2002

This idea that we are appeasing the House of Saud is way off mark. Bush is pissing the the suadi's off with his handling of Israel.

The administration is playing them like a cheap fiddle, pushing them into a corner where they will have to come out against the US, laying the political groundwork for the US to push for a regime change.
posted by Mick at 7:35 AM on April 12, 2002

Whenever people pick sides, especially on a subject as scary as this, they cannot be taken seriously.

Uh, please explain this statement.
posted by bob bisquick at 7:50 AM on April 12, 2002

"Terrorism is a means — the intentional use of violence against civilian populations in order to achieve political ends."

According to this fascinating definition:

A. Assaults against the military (such as the bombing of the Marine barracks and the USS Cole) are not terrorist acts; and

B. Aerial bombing of civilian targets (such as the Christmas bombing of Hanoi or the bombing of the chemical plant in Sudan) are terrorist acts.

Maybe it's time to go back to the drawing board.
posted by nobodyknowsimadog at 8:31 AM on April 12, 2002

I would call the bombing of the USS Cole a military strike. Under what pretext do we consider it otherwise? Does an attack only exceed "terrorism" status once it affords more conventional weaponry?
posted by Pinwheel at 8:38 AM on April 12, 2002

Why not?

Religion, like a gun, is a tool. When someone is shot, we do not blame the gun. We blame the shooter. My logic applies to religion as well. As Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses, (soon replaced by television), religion was/is used to establish a peaceful society. A common goal; to find God. If you look at any religion, basic moral codes are all the same. Do you honestly believe that to be a coincidence?

BlueTrain, did you even bother to read my response at all? Try responding to the points, and not piling out a bunch of non-sequiturs.

I believe it to be hypocritical to brand some terrorism as a type of Islam, but not be at war with Islam.

I believe you don't understand the definition of hypocrisy.
posted by Ty Webb at 8:41 AM on April 12, 2002

Interestingly, the National Review itself considers the Cole attack to have been a terrorist action. See this article by editor-at-large John O'Sullivan and this article by Byron York.
posted by nobodyknowsimadog at 8:54 AM on April 12, 2002

If you label some terrorists as Islamic, you are, in fact, in a war with Islam.

Well, what would an alternative be? How do you define a person who is a follower of Islam and commits terrorist acts. And if you choose to punish the terrorist, how are you punishing the religion?

I also find the analogy used quite irrelevant. A gun is an object, religion is not, it is part of the mental makeup of an individual, and has real effects on said individual's pscyhology, world view, opinions, behaviour etc. It is not as easily seperated from the individual, as say a gun. There is a great argument for gun control, how would you apply that analogy to religion?

On the seperation of politics and religion and where blame lies. It would be ideal to seperate the two, but sadly that is not a reality, govts. also consist of some religious people, and that always comes to bear...
posted by bittennails at 8:55 AM on April 12, 2002

If you brand some drug users as American, then is the 'Drug War', in fact, waging a war on America?

Of course not. A war can be waged (or attempted to be waged) on a subset without implicating the greater whole.

If the US is in a war against an extremist Islamic faction, they are no more waging a war against Islam than they are waging a war against Asia or a war against Humanity or a war against Life.
posted by kfury at 10:19 AM on April 12, 2002

Sorry guys...I don't know what else to say. If you can honestly tell me that you believe that these terrorists are partly Islamic, then this discussion can go no further. I refuse to believe that religion causes wars. I believe people use religion's name to start wars. I've met too many religious folks to believe that religion is the problem.

People don't want to treat each others like equals. It's not human nature. People want to look down upon others. People want to separate themselves into castes and minorities. And politics/govts. are the means to establish these societies. Religion, as I've said before, was/is a way to create a stable and peaceful society. A sort of mind-control to avoid facets of human nature.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:39 AM on April 12, 2002

If you brand some drug users as American, then is the 'Drug War', in fact, waging a war on America?

Of course not. A war can be waged (or attempted to be waged) on a subset without implicating the greater whole.

Although, now looking at kfury's comments, I have to take pause. This makes sense. kfury, one question for you...do drug users represent America as terrorists represent Islam?
posted by BlueTrain at 10:44 AM on April 12, 2002

If you can honestly tell me that you believe that these terrorists are partly Islamic, then this discussion can go no further.

That does not seem to be your reason...

I refuse to believe that religion causes wars.

This does.

A few links:

Europe

Indonesia

Jihad

Google search for "religious wars"

I'm sure there is a lot more on this subject. Do you really believe, bluetrain, that there have been no wars fought for religion? I appreciate your sentiment here, but it is not true.
posted by bittennails at 11:50 AM on April 12, 2002

Okay, if you attack civilians to distract/move miltary forces is it terrorism?

Am I the only one who thinks the rules of war and decency are utter, utter, utter bullshit??

The man had some good points, but something about his photo and his tone made me want to beat his nuts with a ball-peen hammer.
posted by Settle at 4:42 PM on April 12, 2002

Although, now looking at kfury's comments, I have to take pause. This makes sense. kfury, one question for you...do drug users represent America as terrorists represent Islam?

Not in my example. the 'drug war' example was intended to show that you can target a demographic (American drug users, Islamic terrorists) without automatically targeting the superset of that demographic (America, Islam).

The question you pose is more complex though, because the motivations of Islamic extremists are closely tied with their Islamic affiliation, while the fact that American drug users are American is simple gerrymandering and has nothing (well, little) to do with their 'drug user' status.

I feel secure in saying that Islamic extremism is tied to Islamic ideology, but not such that it's impossible to fight Islamic extremism without simultaneously fighting all of Islam. There are reasons that, pre 9-11, only Saudi Arabia and Pakistan recognized the Taliban as a government. Saying that al Quaida's motivations aren't based on religious beliefs is frankly absurd, and I don't fully believe you're not saying it just to get a rise out of people.

Even in our own 'enlightened' country, we blow up abortion clinics and burn down churches and synagogues. Bluetrain, you say that people want to seperate themselves into castes and minorities, to be better than the other castes, and at a fundamental human level that may be true, but while relligions may have originated as a form of government, to create peace, unity, and common vision, when there are so many religions mixing in an ever smaller planet, they quickly become the castes which, as you say, can spark exactly the kind of strife we're seeing in the world today.

It used to be that a religion would fight against a religion (the crusades), a government against a government, or religious government vs a religious government, but now that we have ideologies fighting against coutries, and countries fighting against ideologies, things get really messy because terrorism is the ideologists natural weapon, and sweeping civilian populaces to flush out ideologists is a nations natural recourse. It's hardly the first time, but bombs, planes, and instant mass media empower everyone to make a bigger splash, making a more turbulant pool.
posted by kfury at 9:06 PM on April 12, 2002