|
But obviously that is not true. We have taken no action against most of the terrorist organizations in the world. This has not been a "war on terror." It has been a war against specific entities but by labelling it a war on terror we avoid the appropriate discussion.
There is a huge distance between "we oppose the use of terrorism as a tactic and will not support any organization that does (but know that we define terrorism as a case by case basis as defined by our personal interests)" and "we are at war with terrorism."
As I said, "war" gives the government powers it wouldn't otherwise have. And a war without end gives them those powers permanently. If the IRA gets back into business tomorrow, are we going to invade Ireland to battle the foe of "terrorism?" No. Because we're not at war with terrorism. That is just a label used as a tool. Are we going to invade Spain to snuff out the Basque separatists? East Timor? Chechnya? No, because we're not really at war with terrorism.
If somehow we go to war with Iran, will it be a war against terrorism? No. But it will be labelled that way because it gives the government the most power with the least effort. I supported (and still do) the war in Iraq, but it wasn't a war on terror.
It is a distinction with a huge difference. Because it is using vagueness as a tool to prevent examination.
|