|
I'd be better with it. "War on Terror" is a war against a method. You can't defeat a method. And the most dangerous thing to a liberal democracy is a perpetual open-ended state of war.
The government rightly gains power at the expense of civil liberties in a time of war. It is therefore in the best interests of the unscrupulous to maintain a state of war. When you fight a specific thing there becomes a point at which war is a charade not easily supported (if we're fighting a nation and they stop fighting or officially surrender for example). Fighting a concept offers no such easy resolution.
The United States has spent most of the last 60 years at war with concepts. From 1945-1990 we were in a Cold War with communism. The civil liberty ups and downs of that conceptual war waxed and waned but generally suffered from us not having excuses to kill people (except for two sub periods in Korea and Vietnam). Fortunately for us, over time communism came to equal Russia. If it hadn't we could still easily be in a war with Communism.
The war on terror similarly is a conceptual war. Even if we killed every person who cast a pondering eye towards Al Qaeda, interested parties will always be able to find other groups on whom to continue a war. Because the method of terrorism will always exist. It has always existed. It isn't like "terrorism" is something that popped into existence on September 11, 2001, and can be put back in its box. It wasn't even invented in the 20th century or in the last two millenniums.
So yes, I'd be more happy with individual wars labelled as you describe. At least rational discussion can be made about whether we should be at war with Hamas but not Islamic Jihad or whatever. War powers are a very big hammer, and for those who make a profit selling hammers it is a huge incentive to define everything as a nail. And fighting a concept or method makes that way too easy.
|