Matt Yglesias

23 Responses to “Ending the “War on Terror””

1. Don Williams Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm

   I think Obama should continue George Bush’s custom of having crappy, antiquated , non-networked computers in the White House so that Al Qaeda Cylon raiders can Not infiltrate viruses and take down BattleStar US:

   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/21/AR2009012104249.html

   “Two years after launching the most technologically savvy presidential campaign in history, Obama officials ran smack into the constraints of the federal bureaucracy yesterday, encountering a jumble of disconnected phone lines, old computer software, and security regulations forbidding outside e-mail accounts. ”

   ———
   Ah, yes. I remember Security officers well. They work on the principle that if we can’t communicate with each other, then we won’t provide any information to the Enemy.

   Of course, if you’re trying to actually accomplish something, Security is worse than a horde of computer viruses. They INVENTED the concept of “Denial of Service”.

2. ny nick Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 5:33 pm

   My take is that arguing the semantics doesn’t matter. The term is here and it’s not going away. Once a phrase enters the lexicon, it’s literal meaning is less important than the shorthand connection the brain automatically makes with the term. Think Xerox. If I said I was going to Xerox something, you would know immediately what I’m talking about. The phrase, “war on terror” is shorthand for our efforts to combat Islamic terror. There are so many problems to deal with in the world right now. Why spend time on the trivial.

3. Why oh why Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 5:34 pm

   Next, the war on drugs.

   Come on, Obama. What would Omar do?

4. TH Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 pm

   Agreed with Don Williams. Not to sound like some NRA gun-nut, but if there is in fact a double agent in the White House intent on passing information to the enemy, blocking his Gmail account at the office isn’t going to stop him.

5. Comrade Stuck Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 pm

   “Ending the “War on Terror””

   Drat. I was going to ask Obama to add my electric utility provider to Z war. For the Terror I feel whenever their bill arrives.

6. LaFollette Progressive Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 6:28 pm

   This is a pretty good piece, but you’re still buying into the key fallacy that drives the entire “war on terror” paradigm.

   “But the typical German soldier was a soldier, entitled to return to his home and family unmolested if he survived the war. Men who blow up nightclubs and train stations and demolish office buildings, by contrast, are murderers.”

   And yet the Blitzkrieg certainly blew up nightclubs and train stations, and demolished office buildings, as did the US Airmen who bombed Germany. As did US soldiers and airmen serving in Afghanistan and Iraq, and IDF soldiers in Lebanon and Gaza… (well, ok, maybe not so many nightclubs in Afghanistan or Gaza)

   The only practical distinction between a terror bombing spree and a strategic bombing campaign designed to destroy a nation’s infrastructure and convince their people to surrender is that a powerful nation can drop a whole lot more bombs. Maybe in the past couple of decades they’ve also developed precise enough targeting to consciously minimize civilian casualties, but that’s really just a happy coincidence. It wouldn’t have altered most of our leaders’ decisions about whether or not to bomb people. Our lack of smart bombs didn’t deter FDR or Truman.

   The only legal distinction between a soldier and the people we’ve been hauling off to Guantanamo is whether they wear the uniform of a state that is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions. It has nothing to do with what they’re blowing up or whether they planned and carried out the deliberate mass murder of civilians. A war criminal is a war criminal and a soldier is a soldier. The presence or absence of a military uniform matters for reasons of international law, but once you start accepting that the uniform provides, in and of itself, a moral distinction, then you’ve already moved the goalposts halfway to Guantanamo.

7. Maineiac Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 6:54 pm

   The Jihad against violence and terrorism.

8. Don Williams Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 pm

   Re Matthew’s comment “Simply put, terrorists are not warriors. The German soldiers my grandfather fought during World War II killed people, but they weren’t murderers; they were soldiers. When captured, they became prisoners of war, not criminals. Some on the Nazi side were, of course, criminals — war criminals — and were charged as such. But the typical German soldier was a soldier, entitled to return to his home and family unmolested if he survived the war. Men who blow up nightclubs and train stations and demolish office buildings, by contrast, are murderers.”
   ————-
   Er..would that include our British Allies, who created something called the Special Operations Executive (SOE) to –
   in Churchill’s exact words — “set Europe aflame”. To explicitly Terrorize.

   Not the average civilian, perhaps. But certainly to kill civilian collaborators and civilian leaders in government who worked with the German occupation in the Netherlands and France. As well as attacking the German military contrary to all laws of war.

   By the way, any guess as to who was the godmother to CIA’s clandestine service? Any guess as to Who CREATED many of the techniques of modern day terrorism — explosives, assassination devices, covert communications, etc. Who the fuck was Bin Laden’s inspiration?

   IF we, the United States, was occupied by a foreign army from the far side of the world — an army dedicated to setting up a puppet government in order to loot our country and steal all our wealth – then we would not be that damm fastidious who we killed. Given that stealing our wealth would condemm our nation and our descendents to eternal poverty and would hence probably condemm them to defacto slavery.

   I don’t speak in defense of AL Qaeda — they are our enemy and must be dealt with. But let’s drop the hypocrisy.

   Especially when that hypocrisy was crafted by Bush and Cheney to disguise the fact that 7000 Americans have died needless deaths in the service of special interests — Big Oil and the Israel Lobby. That $3 TRillion badly needed dollars have been stolen from America’s poor, sick, and uneducated children in order to serve those special interests.

   That hypocrisy obscures the fact that our worst enemies lie not within Al Qaeda’s ranks — but within our own.

9. Farid Says:
   January 22nd, 2009 at 10:16 pm

   Obama should start recognizing that US is a terrorist state.

   Time to look inside Hussein. Unclench your own god damn fist and stop saber rattling with your tiny collective dicks and certainly get off the fucking high horse. Chinese and Russians could fuck you up in a matter of days.

   Your days are over. Long period of ass pounding is upon you.

10. S.P. Gass Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 8:01 am

    President Obama was not pressed when he used the term at his remarks to the State Dept:

    “We are confronted by extraordinary, complex and interconnected global challenges: the war on terror, sectarian division, and the spread of deadly technology. We did not ask for the burden that history has asked us to bear, but Americans will bear it. We must bear it.”

11. nolaboy Says:
    January 23rd, 2009 at 8:47 am

    The presence or absence of a military uniform matters for reasons of international law, but once you start accepting that the uniform provides, in and of itself, a moral distinction, then you’ve already moved the goalposts halfway to Guantanamo.

    Of course it provides a moral distinction! When the soldier is acting as a soldier, they are executing the policies of others who in turn are ultimately answerable for the public order of their societies, the policies of a duly elected (or otherwise legitimate) authority.

12. zyban Says:
    March 13th, 2009 at 1:49 am

    It is the coolest site,keep so!

13. xanax Says:
    March 14th, 2009 at 7:05 am

    I want to say – thank you for this!
    xanax

14. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:53 am

    tramadol
    Incredible site!

15. brand viagra Says:
    April 2nd, 2009 at 6:37 am

    Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
    buy cheap viagra

16. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pm

    Thanks for the review! viagra

17. viagra cheap Says:
    April 14th, 2009 at 10:22 am

    thanks !! very helpful post!
    viagra