Terror 'war' doesn't meet definition BY ANDREW GREELEY

[jbfam4]

Terror 'war' doesn't meet definition

September 17, 2004
http://www.suntimes.com/output/greeley/cst-edt-greel17.html

BY ANDREW GREELEY


Indeed, the metaphor ''war on terror'' is exaggerated and misleading. In fact it is a struggle against fanatical terrorists. If the word ''war'' is used to describe the horrific American Civil War AND the current struggle against terrorists (to say nothing of the ''war on drugs,'' the ''war on pollution,'' etc.), then the word has lost all meaning. Moreover, ''terrorism'' is an abstraction, while terrorists are specific people and specific organizations. ''War on terror'' is useful only to persuade the American people that Bush is a wartime president and to justify the foolish and now dangerous war in Iraq.

The United States enjoyed extraordinary goodwill all over the world in the months after the World Trade Center attack. That would have been the time to fashion an international alliance against terror and to bring the best strategic minds together to plan the struggle.


However, the president assures us that the invasion of Iraq is part of his successful war on terrorism and the country is safer because of the invasion. He does not address the question whether some of the hundreds of billions of dollars invested in Iraq might have better been spent on assuring the safety of our ports (only 2 percent of the containers coming to America are screened) and our commuter trains and buses. These kinds of targets are simply waiting for al-Qaida to attack. The war in Iraq, therefore, destroyed any chance for a major universal alliance against terrorists, created thousands more terrorists and diverted money from authentic homeland security.

Language shapes thought. The abuse of language leads to abuse of thought. Many of the presuppositions of American policy are the result of sloppy thinking. However, exaggerated and deceptive language is very useful in the political game, especially if you want to present yourself as a strong leader in time of war.

[readmylips]

1. Bush's Big Whopper...

Bush listened to his Shadow Government of 8, headed by da Dick. The Shadow Government jumped in feet first to accomplishing their long time tunnel vision of invading Iraq, and totally missed the big prize of world unity after the 911 attack.

It would have been easier if bush would have used the 200 Million dollars wasted on this war, and distributed 100 Million to the heads of Saddam's army to get rid of Saddam. Iraqis already hated Saddam, all they needed was a little push and a little bribery. The US is messed up in Iraq, messed up at home and messed up abroad. Being the big kid on the block doesn't always get you winning, especially when you're blind.

[Richardo]

2. Get Andrew Greeley out of my head!!!

His thoughts are mine - only better organized and articulated.

Great article - thanks!

[ixion]

3. I have been saying this since the so-called 'War on Drugs' was started

nearly 20 years ago.

It's a dangerous abstraction of one of humanity's most evil constructions to call these things 'wars'.

The are nothing more than government slogans that scare people into giving up their civil liberties.