The war is over
This week the Whitehouse began referring to the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq as part of the “global struggle against extremism” which I guess is intended to supplant the former tag line “global war against terrorism”. On the surface it seems like a pretty innocuous change but is it?
I think it’s obvious that replacing the word war with struggle is meant to signal the Whitehouse’s realization that these conflicts are over differing ideals and not simply land mass – the difference being how victory is measured. In a war over land like WWII it was pretty clear to everyone that once the Germans had been forced out of Europe it was over. In a battle over ideals, however, victory is not so clear and conflict better represents this inherently ambiguous definition of victory.
Describing these conflicts as a struggle versus a war is meant to frame victory in terms that more closely resemble the reality of the situation and I wholeheartedly support the Bush administration’s move towards reality.
While I agree with the redefinition of victory the recasting of who the enemy is has me concerned. Terrorism is generally accepted to refer to a violent act (or threat of violence) against civilians intended to pressure the victim state to alter some aspect of their political policy. Our enemy is (should be) those that would try to impose their political will through violence against civilians. In this context we all have a clear understanding of who “they” are because we can all agree on who is and is not a terrorist.
Where terrorist paints a fairly consistent picture for everyone extremist does not. How are one’s views determined to be extreme and who makes that determination? It’s a much more subjective word that terrorist.
I oppose the war in Iraq. Am I an extremist? If my opinion is unpopular am I extreme? What if I disagree with my government, does that make me extreme? My point is that before I was clearly not the enemy – I am not a terrorist – so I was entitled to all of the rights (such as due processes) afforded to me as a citizen by the US Constitution, but by redefining the very definition of enemy in much more ambiguous terms the administration gives itself more freedom to proceed unheeded.
The administration now defines both the enemy and the rights of the enemy. That seems to me to be a very slippery slope, but as long as people feel that they are not personally affected they will continue to let the government slowly strip away their rights.
As the “us” group gets smaller and the “them” group gets larger, eventually the individual will care because they will, inevitably, find themselves in on the other side of those that make the rules. Only then it will be too late to do anything about it.
9 Comments
Jump to comment form | comments rss [?] | trackback uri [?]