Bush: "we misnamed the war on terror"

[joaquim]

Hello everyone,

Something important happened during an electoral debate between Bush and Kerry 10 days ago (link below). Bush said:

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. "

Wow! That was step #1 in the winning of this war. And journalists, as usual, did not get the point.

Everything the western world has done since Sept 2001 has merely postponed the fight. Step #2 is to correctly rename this war. Step#3 is to bring new types of weapons, i.e. ideological (including theological). Step #4 is to recruit the majority of the democratic world in this fight (many special interest lobbies have done it, it can be done again). Step #5 is to be persistent, because they have been around for a long time: the extremist ideology Bush is talking about is the same that drove the Saracens, the Moors and the Turks to invade medieval Europe.

A concerned civilian.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/snapshot_8-6.html

 

[scm77]

FYI it wasn't a debate.

FYI2, that really isn't that important.  They're basically the same thing.  Instead of the "war on terror" it should be called war on "idealouge extremeists who commit terror".  No big deal.

 

[Fusaki]

The problem with waging a war on "Terrorism" is that its such a huge grey area with no specific enemy. Bush's new definition means nothong new. In my opinion, someone has to come out and set a concrete goal for this war. Why fight if you don't have a standard for success?

 

[scm77]

There is a standard for success.  The war will be successfull when all terrorists/violent islamic extremeists are whiped off the earth.  Which as everyone knows will take decades.

 

[Gunnerlove]

I can believe the link between terrorism and the Taliban. Without a doubt they were/are a group of religious fanatics and through their actions or inaction sponsored state sanctioned terrorism against other nations. Thus the invasion of Afghanistan could be and was justified to the world.
Now Saddam was a brutal dictator but to call him a religious fanatic is not consistent with his actions or policies throughout his term. If he was going to strip women of their rights then he had what thirty years to do it. The man drank and collected wine, not something a fanatical Muslim would do. The stereotype just does not fit. It is far to easy to label Saddam and the combatants in Iraq as "ideological extremists", and that is what the media reports because it makes for black and white easy to digest news.

Now my question would be who are they at war with in Iraq?

joaquim everheard of the Spanish Inquisition or the war on witchcraft? were they great examples of ignoring ideology in the face of reason on the part of Christians? Or the fruit of ignorance?

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

There is a standard for success. The war will be successfull when all terrorists/violent islamic extremeists are whiped off the earth. Which as everyone knows will take decades.

Why not" when all terrorist/violent extremists are wiped off the earth" ?   PS. Use the spellcheck

 

[Gunnerlove]

So this is just a war against Islamic terrorists? Now I get it. All others are free to roam.

America is still coming to grips with the changing face of fear. For the longest time the enemy was Communism and you could sum up your enemies by naming the handfull of countries with a different economic system. You could control and influence nations with economic sanctions and the threat of nuclear annihilation.

Now since Sept 11 you have learned of a new enemy, the individual. The individual is very frightening because you can't really go to war with an individual, or use economic sanctions or the threat of destruction to control an individual. But you can ride the bus with an individual work with an individual etc. Just look at the Beltway sniper.

A nation did not blow up the trains in Spain it was individuals. Kind of like it was individuals that blew up the Ryder truck in Oklahoma.

 

[scm77]

Why not" when all terrorist/violent extremists are wiped off the earth" ?  PS. Use the spellcheck

You are correct.  Religion shouldn't be a factor.  I apologize.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Now Saddam was a brutal dictator but to call him a religious fanatic is not consistent with his actions or policies throughout his term. If he was going to strip women of their rights then he had what thirty years to do it. The man drank and collected wine, not something a fanatical Muslim would do. The stereotype just does not fit. It is far to easy to label Saddam and the combatants in Iraq as "ideological extremists", and that is what the media reports because it makes for black and white easy to digest news.

I don't see where anyone is calling Saddam a "religious fanatic": the point is that Saddam and these religious extremists share a totalitarian aspect to their ideologies and use terrorism (i.e., attacks directed at civilians) as the means to further their ends.

Much as years ago the Royal Navy declared wars on Slavery and Piracy, the enemy is the idea itself: those that participate in, benefit from and/or support the idea are only the targets.  This can be a difficult concept to grasp (there have been numerous articles published which incorrectly suppose that war cannot be declared on 'an idea'), so I suspect that Bush was only trying to simplify the concept by creating a more tangible enemy.  The notion that terrorist attacks are often carried-out at the individual level, while terrifying (and certainly increasing the need for vigilance), is only incidental to the concept.

 

[Fusaki]

My point is that there isn't much to distinguish a "terrorist" from any other enemy of the state.

Terrorism is not limited to attacks on civilians, not in the mainstream definition anyways. The USS Cole is proof of this. Even ourselves as a civilized western nation have resorted to attacking civilians only 50 years ago during the carpet bombing missions WW2. I'd say that our parents and grandparents arn't barbaric, just desperate to win the war. The targets of terrorists are not the distinguishing factor here.

The term "Terrorist" does not apply to all non-soldier combatants either. We are perfectly willing to train revolutionaries while at war. As well, there are also Terrorist nations. If uniformed soldiers or intelligence agents support a terrorist government, that would make them terrorists as well.

The term "War on Terrorism" could easily mean war against anyone who is willing to take violent action against the west. What about a foreigner who has been granted amnesty by a country that has a less then violent disagreement with the west? Do we go to war with them too? At that rate, we will be alienated from the rest of the world in no time.

Without a clear definition of who are terrorists, how can you defeat them? The first step to problem solving is to identify the problem. But sometimes it seems like the need to avenge the deaths of 9/11 is getting in the way of a thought out strategy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Enough of the problem has been identified to start work.  The niggling over details can be done concurrently.

 

[Gunnerlove]

Ghostwalk good points and I really liked the last paragraph.

John while I do believe you can go to war against an idea I doubt success can be achieved. If an idea could be defeated I would not believe Darwin is right and the KKK would not hate everyone. Your two examples would be wars against the acts of slavery and piracy not the ideas. We have been trying to stop slavery and piracy (let alone the idea of both) for centuries and we have failed.

Trying to create a tangible enemy makes sense only when you can't identify a your real enemies, and in the war against terrorism they are individuals with ideas and beliefs not nations.

 

[dutchie]

I have tried to make similar points to Gunner and Ghostwalk on previous threads, but due to poor choice of words (mine) and an obstenant audience, I was unsuccessful in convincing anyone of anything (my ranking shows the effect of this).

I will try and make my points again:

The War on Terror is separate from the War in Iraq. The WOT legitimately is targeting Terrorists in general, and Al-Quaida/Bin Laden specifically. The War in Iraq is directed at Saddam Hussein, a dictator who has brutalized his own people, but has done nothing to the US other than thumb his nose at them. He also has no known strong ties to Al-Quaida or any other terrorists group.

The West was justified in attacking Afghanistan/Taliban as there were clear links between Afghanistan, the Taliban, Bin Laden, and 9/11.

The US et all were not justified in invading Iraq because there is no evidence he possessed or was attempting to acquire WMD, nor was he planning any attacks on the US/West (other than Israel, which pretty much the entire Middle East despises).

The US has done to Iraq what Iraq did to Kuwait in 1991. They invaded a much weaker sovereign country with no provocation, under false/fabricated pretenses.

This is MHO

 

[Brad Sallows]

>He also has no known strong ties to Al-Quaida or any other terrorists group.

I see the message has changed.  It used to just be "no known ties".

Have you considered the possibility that an attack on Iraq - by anyone who cared to do so - was always justified provided Hussein was removed?

 

[axeman]

in other persons eyes the attack on  so-damned insane  was also terrorism ? the police go stop resisting arrest when they start to wail on you but what happens when some one goes stop assaulting me ?

 

[dutchie]

Brad - In short: No.

The end does not justify the means. Just as beating a suspect to illicit a confession is not justified. (Not that I am equating these two things). I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over. The exception being when that dictator threatens others outside his nation to a significant enough extent to justify the carnage resluting from war. The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc) within a nation (ie - Rwanda). In this case, the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide.


Re: "I see the message has changed"......please explain. I didn't modify my post......so are you saying I have changed my wording from a previous thread? If so, I freely admit to changing my choice of words, the reasons for which were explained in my original post.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

"We actually misnamed the war on terror. It ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies, who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. "

Well, joaquim, I agree with you.  I think the statement was important, but the underlying message even more important. 

The War on Terror is a far too distant term and allows citizens to see it as something the government handles at arm's length and shouldn't affect their daily lives.

Bush's restatement is far more accurate and if carried by the media should make the threat far more personal which it needs to be.




Matthew. 

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Your two examples would be wars against the acts of slavery and piracy not the ideas. We have been trying to stop slavery and piracy (let alone the idea of both) for centuries and we have failed.

I am talking about the legitimacy of the ideas, not their existence per se. I'm not trying to claim that they no longer exist at all, but rather than both slavery and piracy are nowhere near the problem they once were: it wasn't the case that all slave owners or all pirates had to be killed in order to de-legitimize the ideas.  There no longer are 'state sponsors' of slavery or piracy.  As with terrorism, there were always slave-traders and pirates 'within our midst,' but the menace to society that they represent has been greatly reduced.  To me, this is clear precedent for the war on terrorism and what victory will entail (similarly, there is still the odd Nazi running-around, but that doesn't mean that WW2 wasn't won).

He [Saddam Hussein] also has no known strong ties to Al-Quaida or any other terrorists group.

Strong, or otherwise this is patently and demonstrably false.  If you want an intelligent debate, I suggest doing a little research before tossing-out conjecture as fact: even a basic Google search.  Here's two articles about Saddam's relationship with Abu Nidal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml ; and Palestinian suicide bombers: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml

I do not see the removal of a foreign dictator as the business of anyone except the citizens whom he rules over.  The exception being when that dictator threatens others outside his nation to a significant enough extent to justify the carnage resulting from war.

Well Saddam has a very long history of threatening â Å“others outside his nationâ ? and there was no indication that he was about stop.  He was certainly aiding and abetting terrorism, even if you buy the rather implausible â Å“he no longer had any interest in WMDâ ? line.

The other exception being crimes against humanity (Genocide, etc) within a nation (ie - Rwanda). In this case, the immediate issue (and the focus of the 'liberators') should not be the removal of the Dictator, but the cessation of the genocide.

And then what?

In any event:

Enough of the problem has been identified to start work.  The niggling over details can be done concurrently.

100%


P.S> Gunnerlove, this is not a problem or a complaint, but my nickname is I_am_John_Galt, which is a reference to a character in a book (Atlas Shrugged); it took me off guard to be addressed as â Å“John,â ? and so took me a bit to realize you were responding directly to me.  Regards, Tim

 

[dutchie]

Strong, or otherwise this is patently and demonstrably false.   If you want an intelligent debate, I suggest doing a little research before tossing-out conjecture as fact: even a basic Google search.   Here's two articles about Saddam's relationship with Abu Nidal: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/08/25/wnidal25.xml ; and Palestinian suicide bombers: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/04/03/world/main505316.shtml


Well Saddam has a very long history of threatening â Å“others outside his nationâ ? and there was no indication that he was about stop.   He was certainly aiding and abetting terrorism, even if you buy the rather implausible â Å“he no longer had any interest in WMDâ ? line.


And then what?

I specifically chose the word "strong" for a reason. It is easy to paint a picture with paper trails, mysterious intel sources, etc that Saddam had ties to terrorists. It is quite another story to support these accusations with real proof (ie-Taliban/Bin Laden). The burden of proof required to invade Iraq was not met to a satisfactory level. Saddam had no stronger ties to terrorism than other arab states. Terrorism COULD have been a reason to invade Iraq, if the ties were there. The US govt themselves did not go to great lengths to try and claim Saddam was being removed due to terrorists links. My point was to eliminate 'Links to Terrorism' as an excuse to invade.

I have not accused you (or anyone else) of not doing your homework, so don't accuse me. Do you know me? No. How do you know that I have not done my homework? Because I disagree with you?

Re:Saddam has a long history....not going to stop: Yes, he does have a long history....BEFORE the original Gulf War! He had no capacity to attack anyone with success. Saddam was not a threat to anyone outside his own borders.

Re:and then what (Genocide) - As I stated in my original post, military action is justified against a foreign government on grounds of genocide. Full stop/end of discussion.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

Caeser;

The terrorist-related claim regarding the invasion of Iraq was not some nebulous concept of 'strong' ties to terrorism: it was that Saddam had provided safe harbour for terrorists.   The first link I provided gave the example of Abu Nidal, who at the time was the most wanted terrorist in the world.   Two more examples off the top of my head are Abdul Yassin (from the '93 WTC bombing) and Abu Abbas (most infamously because of the Achillie Lauro incident) who was actually caught by the Americans in Iraq last year (trying to escape to Syria - hmmm).   You cannot conceivably know this information and claim that Saddam was not providing safe harbour to terrorists.

On the other hand, if you still claim that there was some heretofore unknown criteria of 'strong' ties, (reference my second link) if paying terrorists to commit acts of terrorism does not constitute a 'strong' tie what on earth could?   If you had said that ties to 9/11 specifically had not been proven, you might have a point.   But then again, that wasn't the claim was it?

Saddam not a threat?   If you don't count all of the Kurds and other Iraqis he killed after the first Gulf War, there's still the troop build-ups that threatened Kuwait.   Given his links to the Palestinian suicide bombers, I suspect that there are a lot of Israelis that would disagree with you, too.   If you had said that he wasn't a direct threat to the United States, you might have an arguable point.

Re: genocide: Okay, you invade this hypothetical country and stop the genocide without destabilizing the government.   THEN what do you do?   Leave and ask them politely not to do it again?   Stick around indefinitely?   How could you hold the gov't accountable without effecting regime change?