« Isn't the fight against "Islamic Fascists" police work? | Main | In vino veritas? »

August 14, 2006

Is it "war"? (part 2)

T
he New York Times yesterday featured a story on the debate about whether the "War on Terrorism" is in fact best described as a "war." The crux of the piece is the question whether, to the extent we've treated it as a war, "this strategy created greater danger by providing terror groups with exactly what they crave: the sense that they are a unified army of jihadists?" When I raised this question-is it a war?--on Friday, I had in mind that the asymmetries of conflict wtih terrorists make what's been derided as "mere police work" a more effective tool against terrorists than the sheer violent force of war-making. Of course the Dick Cheney view, the same view I've heard far too often from supporters of Israel's right wing over the years, is that "these people" only understand force: “You’ll see case after case of terrorists hitting America or American targets — and America failing to hit back hard enough.” What I want to know from the Israelis is whether they're better off after 30 years of hitting back hard? It's as if some people think that if we only hit those Arabs hard enough, they'll submit, as if they're more like dogs than the free and independent homo sapiens we are.

Another point raised by the Administration's intellectual supporters that has puzzled me is that this conflict with "Islamic Fascists" is somehow more dire than the Cold War. (Joe Lieberman, yesterday: "the evil of the enemy that faces us . . . . [is] probably more dangerous than the Soviet Communists we fought during the long cold war.”) I remember sitting in on a mock senatorial hearing on the NSA Wiretappying Controversy at my law school during which Ruth Wedgewood, tesitifying on behalf of the Bush Adminnistration, explained that during the Cold War we were secure, thanks to Mutually Assured Destruction, in ways we are no longer. I don't know about those others of you who lived through much of that period, but I remember it as terrifying. My parents--optimistic and fearless types with 4 young kids--were terrified the Cuban Missile Crisis was going to erupt into total nuclear war. I grew up with one recurrent nightmare--planes overhead dropping the bombs I knew signalled total nuclear holocaust. Do you remember The Day After? The Soviet Union had the capacity to destroy the United States. The "Islamic Fascists" don't. I'm not saying they can't cause monumental and horrific harm, but let's keep our facts straight. Another twist on arguing the current situation is worse than the Cold War is that "Islamic Fascists" are irrational--driven by a faith that would welcome mass martyrdom--whereas the Soviets were rational. It's another version of: we felt safer then. But I don't think we did.

Posted by Peter at August 14, 2006 10:32 AM

Comments

I can't claim any insight into the worldview that hatches these kind of analogies, and it's diffucult to separate posturing from actual positions. But from what I can gather, the belief isn't that "Islamofascism" at present compares to the Soviet menace. It's that the former has the potential to, and that we must nip it in the bud before it takes root in the populace and rebuilds the Caliphate. Or something like that.

It would also explain the severe allergy to anything approaching diplomacy, which they fear would, like Yalta, sow the seeds of tyranny and allow it to grow for generations. Yada yada yada.

Posted by: Andy Vance at August 14, 2006 3:48 PM

DarkSyde at Daily Kos has a recent post also pointing out that the nuclear annihilation threat was much greater than that of terrorism today. There was a funny response to his post at redstate.com, claiming he was all wrong.

Posted by: Dale at August 14, 2006 8:37 PM

You can see their point though. All Al Qaeda needs to do is successfully repeat the WTC event 100,000 times within a matter of hours to do as much damage to us as the Soviet Union could have done. Only the GOP can prevent that!

Posted by: Mojo at August 14, 2006 10:31 PM

There are two distinct parts to the post. One is whether the Bush approach to terrorism is appropriate? and the second "What I want to know from the Israelis is whether they're better off after 30 years of hitting back hard?"

Second: the question is what measure are you using? 30 years later there is peace with two countries and an agreement with the Palestinians seems feasible. Granted if your measure is: are there still Arabs semi-military groups fighting Israel - the answer is positive.

First: The war in Iraq has nothing to do with terrorism. The Afghanistan affair is a failure because it was half-hearted. No money was flowing into the country to rebuild and develop it. The rest of the anti-terror activity seems more a PR war and an internal political campaign than even a police action.

Posted by: shmuel at August 15, 2006 4:00 AM

If we declare victory in the "War on Terror" are we going to have a big tickertape parade in Times Square? If so, will there be security at that parade? I can't imagine not. Therefore, the "war on terror" is a perpetual ideal, as are all other wars-on-nouns, rather than a real war. It means nothing more than politicians believe their constituents are pissed of at some concept.

Posted by: Bruce M at August 16, 2006 4:06 PM