When a War Isn't a War

There is no more War on Terror. At least not in the language of the British government, where they’ve chosen to stop using the phrase. The U.S. government attempted much the same linguistic maneuver over two years ago. Except, in America, it was just a new name (the catchy “global struggle against the enemies of freedom”) and not really a new outlook. In Britain, the views seem to be changing with the words.

The Brits said terrorist fanatics are not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless death cult. The official added:

The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers. They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way.

Well, it’s never been a “war” in the traditional sense. But neither have the events of the last decade been some crime wave carried out by an “aimless death cult.” Their aim is pretty clear: to decrease Western and Western-allied power and make room for the ascendancy of their corrupted, radical brand of Islam. The most applicable word for these terrorists is “guerilla.” Like typical guerillas, they are part of a loosely (sometimes extremely loosely) affiliated network of rebels who share a common ideology and compatible goals.

I guess “the struggle against loosely affiliated, radical Islamic guerilla terrorists” is not exactly a workable name. But it’s better than no name at all. If we do not categorize events such as 9/11, London, Madrid and others as part of an ongoing pattern, we are denying that there is a bigger picture that requires bigger strategies. Additionally, labeling the perpetrators as “fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals” is overly dismissive of these terrorists who very much consider themselves soldiers in a global conflict.

Language matters. Labels help guide thought. I agree that the term “war” is far too limiting and has contributed to the kind of narrow thinking that took us into Iraq. But neither is it helpful to approach these terrorists as if they are half-insane death cult members or members of some crime syndicate. The truth is more complex.

I’m sure that the British government is still taking the global threat of radical Islamic terrorism seriously. But I’m concerned by their use of language. We must find words that walk the right line between overstating and dismissing the struggle at hand.

Bhutto's Future Was Brighter Than Her Past

Ambivablog directs us to a fascinating Christopher Hitchens piece which reminds us of Benazir Bhutto’s many failings while still concluding her death is a major disaster. Yes, as prime minister, she aided the Taliban and helped Pakistan acquire nuclear weapons BUT

There is at least some reason to think that she had truly changed her mind, at least on the Taliban and al-Qaida, and was willing to help lead a battle against them.

I would add that by providing a viable, non-Islamist challenge to Musharraf, she gave her nation and the rest of the world hope that Pakistan could forge a future separate from both the current autocratic rule and Islamic fundamentalist rule. Now her cause must go on without her.

Today’s appointment of Bhutto’s disreputable husband as acting party leader (until Bhutto’s 19 year-old son finishes school and can take over) does not bode well for Pakistan. Of course, he too may have changed, evolving from an unflaggingly corrupt official into someone who cares about the greater future of his nation. We can hope.

Throughout the course of the war on terror, Pakistan’s possession of nuclear weapons has been one of the gravest concerns. We simply cannot afford a radical Islamic party to take control of that nation – not only because such a government might be more inclined to deploy their weapons but also because possession of nuclear warheads would give the fundamentalists and their allies such as al Qaeda a devastating bargaining chip.

Bhutto’s death is a tragedy. Hopefully others will be able to rise and carry on the democratic objectives she promised.

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

A sad, tragic day. And a scary one. We can only hope the aftershocks of this event die down quickly. Now, more than ever before, we’ll find out if our steadfast support of Musharraf has been wise or dangerously foolish. His leadership right now may be all that stands between a functional nation and chaos.

The world lost a very brave woman today. We should all take a moment to mourn.

Don't Believe the Fear

Acclaimed science fiction writer Orson Scott Card is known for his novels that delve into the complex moral judgments of war. So I was not surprised to find he’d written an essay on our current war. The whole essay is worth the read, but I'm going to focus on how he opens:

If control of the House passes into Democratic hands, there are enough withdraw-on-a-timetable Democrats in positions of prominence that it will not only seem to be a victory for our enemies, it will be one.

Unfortunately, the opposite is not the case -- if the Republican Party remains in control of both houses of Congress there is no guarantee that the outcome of the present war will be favorable for us or anyone else.

But at least there will be a chance

I say this as a Democrat, for whom the Republican domination of government threatens many values that I hold to be important to America's role as a light among nations

But there are no values that matter to me that will not be gravely endangered if we lose this war. And since the Democratic Party seems hellbent on losing it -- and in the most damaging possible way -- I have no choice but to advocate that my party be kept from getting its hands on the reins of national power, until it proves itself once again to be capable of recognizing our core national interests instead of its own temporary partisan advantages.

That is very similar to the opinion I would have written had I not come down on the Democratic side in this election. But I didn’t write that opinion because I think it’s ultimately flawed.

A victory for the Democrats is not a victory for our enemies. While it’s true that many Democrats want us out of Iraq regardless of the consequences, I know of no prominent Democrat who wants us to simply roll over to the terrorists. That is doubly true for the many centrist-leading Democratic candidates who are poised to win their elections.

I understand Mr. Card’s worries. But he is wrong to think there is no chance for victory in this war should the Democrats win. The balance of power will be such that Democrats can’t lead a full-scale withdrawal out of Iraq even if they wanted to. But they can push the President to adopt new tactics and new strategies that a Republican Congress would be reluctant to request. I wouldn’t vote (and didn’t vote) for pure “we gotta get out now” Democrats. But there are enough intelligent Democrats running that I believe we can trust the party just enough to give them power for the next two years.

In my way of thinking, it’s essential to give the Democrats majority status so that we can discover once-and-for-all whether or not they can be trusted on national security matters. If they are as dangerous as Card and others believe, then President Bush provides the perfect stopgap. That gives us the opportunity to safely (or relatively safely) discover who the modern Democrats really are before we elect our next President.

The Republican Congress isn’t getting it done. They’ve botched things too much for anyone to feel comfortable with letting them continue at this time. The Democrats may be worse. But we don’t really know that until we give them a shot. People like Card should stop buying into the fears propagated by the right and begin viewing these next two years as the perfect chance to audition the Democrats.