Win the War on Terror

I have gotten pretty used to the President and the other White House people using that phrase, which is to say, when they use it I don't get apoplectic. The other day I heard it come up a couple of times in reporting from the floor of the Congress. We got ourselves passed a bill that said they wouldn't put a deadline on troop removal.

They are going to have to work a lot more hours if they are going to pass a bill for everything they aren't going to do.

But, my apoplexy...

"Win the war on terror." How?

What capitol needs to be taken? What territory needs to be occupied? What icon needs to be captured? What person needs to be toppled? What person needs to be killed? What government needs to be overthrown?

How can we ever win the war on terror?

When one goal is achieved, another will slip in to replace it. Capture Saddam, in comes Moussoui. Pacify Afghanistan, here's Iraq... Iran... Sudan...

It is not a war, it is "whack-a-mole," and anyone who has played that game knows you don't win, the game just ends.

I am all for keeping our country safe, but I really resent the rhetoric designed to froth us up for a process that is illusory. There is no war on terror. There is a military action against the Taliban. There is a military occupation of Iraq. I'm sure there is a clandestine effort against Al Queda - at least I hope so. But the Taliban, Iraq and Al Queda are not "Terror."

Jason Vorhees is terror. Freddy Kruger is terror. And if we learned anything about the embodiment of terror from the movies is that it can't be defeated, on deferred.

What's wrong with identifying real goals and then working to achieve them?

We were struck by terrorists on 9/11. A reasonable outcome from that occurrence:

1. Strike back at those who struck at us.
2. Improve national intelligence efforts.
3. Improve law enforcement practices with regard to terrorism.
4. Work globally to diffuse terrorism.

It seemed like for a while we were going this way. We launched a war against Afghanistan, which we knew to be the government that was harboring the leadership of those that struck at us. We rejiggered our intelligence and first responder communities. And then, then I think things went sadly awry.

I guess the invasion of Iraq can be placed under the heading of diffusing terrorism globally. But really its sort of a messy approach. There were plenty of identifiable terrorist organizations that could have been worked on. The problem is that none of those groups could be invaded. There simply couldn't be a war on terrorism. There's nothing to attack with a navy. Its boring.

A war on terrorism would be a global engagement against insurgents. It isn't really war, its intelligence and law enforcement - and every now and then you might get to blow something or someone up.

There are bodies that have been engaged in "terror wars" for decades without much improvement. Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Israel, they could all tell us something about the mechanics and the possible successes of a war on terror - or the total lack thereof.

Remember when someone prominent was scoffed at for saying it is the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time. Well, they were right. A war in Iraq is only a prima facia war on terror. Prior to our destabilization of Iraq they didn't have much of a terrorist population - and there were certainly places that could have been identified that did, if only to go after another existing terrorist organization, or finish up in Afghanistan for that matter. And we went too early, which is not to say that there would never be a right time, but the urgency with which we pressed ahead is really indicative of doing something for the sake of doing something. There was plenty to finish that we had already started abroad. There was plenty to finish in our reconfiguration at home. There was plenty of cause to invest in intelligence gathering before deploying.

That is the genesis of the war on terror.

So if we don't really make headway into a pacification of terrorists around the world in this way, what is it that we do get? Well, we get action for one thing. We're doing something and it is visible. I guess that's worth some points. Although I am perfectly willing to believe that our intelligence assets and special forces are pounding away in the dark, but others may not be. It certainly doesn't make the news in the same way.

The cynical person in me thinks that what we're after here though is hysteria. The opportunity to govern in an environment of elevated energy, impatience, and urgency. This administration has been all about urgency from the beginning. Along with the terror crisis, we've had an education crisis, a social security crisis, a Medicare crisis, a North Korea crisis...

Really it seems like the only thing they didn't really approach as a crisis was the flooding crisis. Probably because that was an actual crisis, not a crisis of their creating for the purposes of moving public policy.

Having "the war on terror" and an elevated sense of national threat has allowed this group to virtually ignore all the things they said were important ages ago, and not so many ages ago: education, national intelligence, disaster preparedness, gas prices, social security, Medicare. This way it can be all war all the time. Every bit of legislation can be "in time of war," every erosion of our rights and privacy can be "we're at war," every contract written can be rushed with the urgency of "there's a war on."

How much easier it must be for them.

As a group, we should all treat the "War on terror" as what it is: sloppy. I would never have accepted it as a thesis proposal. I can hear the conversation in my head: "What are the deliverables?" The same thing should be true of this effort. "We will stand down as the Iraqis stand up" is a great slogan, but it doesn't get us closer to the accomplishment of an identified goal. I don't need a timetable, but I would like to see a list, and I would like my representatives to have a part in composing and priortizing that list. That process ought to cast the objectives in out world wide campaign to reduce the threat of terrorism (not as catchy as "war on terror" I know) within the context of the other national priorities that cannot be forgotten, and deserve the time and scrutiny of the full weight of the government - not just a quick glance because there's a war on.

If you spell out "war on terror" into world wide campaign to reduce the threat of terrorism I believe you get fairly unified support for the concept. Its a bipartisan winner. However, the actual nuts and bolts of the process deserve more than rhetoric and hysteria. Mucj more than "whack-a-mole."