Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Long War?
Alecthar
Alan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered User regular
Alan ShoreWe're not territorial about that sort of thing, are we?Registered User regular
I was talking with my father and a close friend of mine about the ongoing War on Terror. My friend mentioned the term "Nether-war" for the war because of the legal netherworld it seems to exist in. It seems a cogent observation. We call it the War on Terror, or the Long War, but those we capture are not PoWs. We do not fight this "war" against any recognizable government or definable nation. Yet we also aren't involved in a police action or war on crime (as in the War on Drugs) because our captives are not afforded the right to due process.
This led my father to note that calling it a War is a strategic misstep, because it implies a certain legitimacy on the part of our opponents. He noted also that it is misleading to think of it as such, because wars have definable beginnings and ends and the kind of action that counter-terrorism is, did, and will require is unending, because just like any other crime, it is essentially ineradicable.
So what do you guys think? Is the term "war" a misnomer? Are we better off treating the war as a true war, with PoWs? Should we be engaged in a police action, treating terrorism as another breed of dangerous criminal action to be fought accordingly? Discuss...
This led my father to note that calling it a War is a strategic misstep, because it implies a certain legitimacy on the part of our opponents. He noted also that it is misleading to think of it as such, because wars have definable beginnings and ends and the kind of action that counter-terrorism is, did, and will require is unending, because just like any other crime, it is essentially ineradicable.
So what do you guys think? Is the term "war" a misnomer? Are we better off treating the war as a true war, with PoWs? Should we be engaged in a police action, treating terrorism as another breed of dangerous criminal action to be fought accordingly? Discuss...
Alecthar on
Posts
Your father is right I think. Treating Al Qaeda in the same manner we treat other countries is great for getting the ol' Us and Them thing going, but it gives them power that they should not have.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Thats what gets me about this whole thing... terrorism is a method - not a cause. Anyone that actually believes that someone "hates your freedom" probably isn't going to do much thinking for themselves anytime soon. Terrorism is how you fight, when you dont have resources.
So: What does victory look like? If you killed everyone. All the "terr'sts". What do you think will happen when their kids grow up? When their community recovers? Thats right... they will want revenge. Its an endless cycle.
A "war on terror" is a fantastic way of never actually addressing the issues behind the conflict.
Terrorists don't follow what our military considers to be the Rules of War.. they attack civilians, assassinate, and use weapons such as fear and paranoia to their advantage... if our military uses these tactics they hide it well in case our squeamish populations complain.
The people we are fighting have no such moral holdups.. they will do it because they, generally speaking, feel they have no choice.. we are talking about people who are willing to blow themselves up to fight against the injustices they have seen and the people their leaders have identified as the source of those injustices.. you can't fight a group of people willing to kill themselves to hurt you with weapons.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
I hope the next boogeyman has nothing to do with religion. Or the Middle East.
So it's "definitely a war", just not a war by any definition of a war before this one. And, you know, without precident. But, yeah, it's a war fer shure.
China.
Or Google.
Whoever gets to the moon first.
This "war" is really another crusade. The battlefront is moving now to Africa. Why africa you ask? Because they are the prime breeding ground for more terrorists. If the extremists get to them before we do, then we are looking at a whole continent of terrorists.
Dont be fooled though. The war that Bush has choosen to place america in is one of greed and revenge. The war the terrorists are taking to america is a holy war. How can we win/end this if we aren't even fighting/defending against the same thing?
This is why I will NOT be re-enlisting.
No, its not a war that is in line with the traditional western idea of it.. there are other ideas about how to fight a war you know, and other tactics beyond large fields of combat.. as a culture we just don't tend to like the idea of using them.
Its war in that people are dying.
Its just that people doing the killing arent entirely sure why.
Genius.
Ehh... they're legitimate threats. They're just oversold and dealt with incredibly poorly.
Congress Declares War on Autism. Autism responds by lining all it's toy cars up in a row and flapping it's hands.
All it is, as far as I can tell, is that certain large segments of the population just respond well to martial imagery and rhetoric. Saying that we have anti-drug policies is a weak sell compared to a "WAR on Drugs!" It tells Republicans that we're taking this seriously, dammit.
And, of course, calling it a "War on Terror" allowed for an easy cognitive transition from the umbrella metaphorical term into actual war, even if there really wasn't any good justification under the "terrorism" mandate.
Referring to a conflict as a war is a very concise way of highlighting the fact that there is going to be a big struggle involved. However, whether calling it a war on terror is helpful or not may be more critical. Is it a war on terror? As already mentioned, terror is a tool of war. It's not a modern one either, terror in various forms has been used for political ends for centuries (and after all, what is war but an extension of politics by other means?). The problem is, the war on terror isn't a war on terror, but what it actually is a war on is a lot harder to define, perhaps because the people declaring the war on terror aren't actually completely sure themselves what they are fighting a war against.
The first step in any conflict is identifying your target. The target may include a particular person or group of people, but really the greater target is a goal. Conquering new lands, securing assets, convincing others of your point of view (or even defending your land, assets or point of view). Until you can identify that target, you can't hope to begin to develop a coherent strategy. Really America's war on terror is a war to defend the status quo. This is the same war they've been fighting for the past fifty years, the problem being the desired status quo and the groups opposing the status quo are in a constant flux.
In a national policy sense, especially a foreign policy sense, describing anything but an actual war as "war" is irresponsible. I know that it's done a lot, but I still consider it poor use of the word.
And yeah I also think that an umbrella term like "terror" or even "terrorism" is another poor choice. The ephimerality and lack of definition, definable endpoints (or even meaningful benchmarks) of the whole thing really gives me a sinking feeling.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
And regardless to your personal exceptions, use of the word war in the context of phrases such as 'war on drugs' and 'war on terrorism' is perfectly acceptable. It's just you need to be careful what you declare war on, because from a political point of view it simply doesn't do to go making bold declarations about goals you can't achieve. It'll get you only so far before people start loosing faith in you.
You're either with us or against us. Stop hating my freedom.
Someone once said that to me.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
So were the Russians but it doesn't make McCarthyism acceptable
My statement referred to the specters of communism and terrorism both, and I agree with you.
It's the "on Terror" part that gets me. "Terror" is not a person or group. War on Al Quaeda, that makes sense. War on Osama, that makes sense. Fuck, even War on "Islamofascists" makes more sense that this "on Terror" stuff.
Really America wants to be engaged in another cold war in the middle east where the ultimate goal is to alter middle eastern opinion of the west through sustained propaganda and dirty ops (overthrowing and assassinating certain powerful people, backing certain minority groups, doing deals with countries they can't official be seen to be doing deals with etc.). It's the sort of war which is entirely unethical, usually goes horribly wrong and makes things worse but is quite possibly necessary. 'The war on terror' is a weak cover-up that seems to fool most people and confuse others and helps justify the visible phases of the war ie. military operations.
Nowadays it's not really clear what's going on - I believe that their are a lot of politicians who genuinely believe they're bringing or trying to bring democracy and freedom. They're just bad at it, and of course this precipitates bad situations and bad people make off like bandits which is what conspiracy theories are all an attempt to rationalize in the end.
Yeah - you kind of have an obligation to get it right yourselves before you start ramming it down other people's throats.
ehh...
Does not follow.