What are we fighting?
It's been a while since anyone here at The Recipe has had the enthusiasum to write a piece of any real significance. Glad to see Dr Cook has broken the ice.
Though he didn't come right out and ask it, Dr Cook in his last post alludes to the fundamental question regarding the War on Terror. What is a terrorist? We know that we have declared war on terrorists, but five years on, we're still not sure as to who they are, or even what their exact aims are.
So what is a terrorist? Broadly speaking, a terrorist is simply someone that engages in acts of terror. However this definition is so vague that it is close to meaningless, and at any rate, presents many historical problems. For example, how should an American administration treat an organization that engages in acts that some would consider terror, even if many others think morally justifiable? Before they were a political party, the African National Congress waged an armed campaign against the apartheid regime of South Africa, complete with bombings and assasinations.
My point here is not to defend apartheid or to question the tactics and political aims of the ANC. Rather, my point is to show that words such as "terrorism", "terrorist", and "acts of terror"are vague and relative to your particular point of view, so that it is unwise and dangerous to use them as blanket terms. Bush certainly know this, since he has struggled (without much success) to name our current "enemy". He has tried "jihadists", "islamo-fascists", etc., yet he generally reverts back to "terrorists", since it seems to encompass all things bad while offending no one in the electorate.
Yet this is a dangerous policy, for how do you fight an enemy that you cannot even properly define? The problems are endless. As someone said once, the first step must always be to "know your enemy."
I think this is why I've been so skeptical about the global war on terror, since I've never been too sure what we were fighting against, other than another September 11. Wars are a serious business, and should be treated as such, with clearly defined enemies and goals. They should not be directionless campaigns against undefined enemies using tactics that should be considered criminal. It makes you wonder as to who the terrorist actually is.
Though he didn't come right out and ask it, Dr Cook in his last post alludes to the fundamental question regarding the War on Terror. What is a terrorist? We know that we have declared war on terrorists, but five years on, we're still not sure as to who they are, or even what their exact aims are.
So what is a terrorist? Broadly speaking, a terrorist is simply someone that engages in acts of terror. However this definition is so vague that it is close to meaningless, and at any rate, presents many historical problems. For example, how should an American administration treat an organization that engages in acts that some would consider terror, even if many others think morally justifiable? Before they were a political party, the African National Congress waged an armed campaign against the apartheid regime of South Africa, complete with bombings and assasinations.
My point here is not to defend apartheid or to question the tactics and political aims of the ANC. Rather, my point is to show that words such as "terrorism", "terrorist", and "acts of terror"are vague and relative to your particular point of view, so that it is unwise and dangerous to use them as blanket terms. Bush certainly know this, since he has struggled (without much success) to name our current "enemy". He has tried "jihadists", "islamo-fascists", etc., yet he generally reverts back to "terrorists", since it seems to encompass all things bad while offending no one in the electorate.
Yet this is a dangerous policy, for how do you fight an enemy that you cannot even properly define? The problems are endless. As someone said once, the first step must always be to "know your enemy."
I think this is why I've been so skeptical about the global war on terror, since I've never been too sure what we were fighting against, other than another September 11. Wars are a serious business, and should be treated as such, with clearly defined enemies and goals. They should not be directionless campaigns against undefined enemies using tactics that should be considered criminal. It makes you wonder as to who the terrorist actually is.
posted by Mr Beerman at 7:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home