No More War on Terror

"War of Terror" (WOT) has got to end with Kerry, not continue.  This is a stupid term/concept.  It troubles me to hear Kerry using this proto-fascist term created by the hate-mongering, fear-mongering neocon think-tank (cesspool) that IS the Bush administration.

We cannot let this meme/policy survive.  We must demand an end to the so-called WOT (SCWOT).  We need this and the world needs this.

If there are ways other than war to PREVENT attacks, we should use them (for example, providing for aid, education, clean water, women's rights, etc.).  All those good things that $225 billion might have paid for.  Instead we have WOT - death distruction, ill will and more fear, more mistrust and distrust.

Moreover, when we use the term and do not use quotation marks, or the disclaimer "so-called," we capitulate to the neocon world-view.  This is THEIR term, not ours.

Stop, people.  Tell the Kerry Administration that the so-called "War on Terror" must END:

We don't want SCWOT.  No more SCWOT.  No more War.

•  Terror is a tactic

  not an enemy.  We might as well say we're fighting a war on car bombs.  A war must have a defined enemy, or it's just a paranoid sitting in the dark with the safety off his gun.  We can be in a war against Al Quaeda, which is where we should be.  After all, no less than the great Ann Coulter defines cream pies as part of terrorism.  Are we also in a war on bakeries?

  War on "terror" is a stupid invention of the neocons to mask their desire to take down Saddam Hussein despite the fact that he presented no imminent threat.

  by demokath on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:36:23 AM PDT

  •  Exactly

    This has been rehashed ad infinitum here and elsewhere, and yet we continue to use this term, the Kerry campaign is using it, and it seems likely that a Kerry Administration will not only use the term, but that they will continue this obscenety of a policy that spreads misery, destruction and death, not to mention heaps scorn upon the US and the military.

    STOP SCWOT!

    by Gearhead on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:39:30 AM PDT

•  Point of procedure

  It would be a far superior allocation of dollars to promote rights, respect and liberty in allied, oil-producing Islamic states than to lay waste to enemy countries and start from absolute scratch with the aid of a now-hostile, horoughly-vengeful Iraqi people.

  However, I need to share this  -

  The Kerry campaign has succeeded precisely because

  (a) there is a widespread perception among American voters that a terrorist organization called Al-Qaida blew up the WTC, and there were nation-states that aided and abetted their intrigues, and

  (b) that the misadventure in Iraq is a distraction from that operation, and that the Bush administration is in the wrong in innumerable ways for that project, including turning its back on national security by making the nation more insecure.

  I submit that three days prior to Election Day in the midst of not one but two ongoing wars, one of which the American people have long since decided is both real and important (Iraq not being it), is not the best time to discuss the admirable topic of pacifism.

  The key to peace is the spread of democracy -- but that only happens when the intentions are honorable, and the persons proclaiming the words 'liberty' and 'peace' and 'freedom' truly value the message, not what saying it can garner them in the way of power.

  We'll get there, one nation at a time.

  Starting with our own. :)

  by cskendrick on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:45:50 AM PDT

  •  Pacifism, etc.

    I appreciate your comment and agree with most of it.  Please note that with my diary, I am trying to look beyond the election which, while is of immediate concern, is not the final goal of all the effort being discussed on this blog.  Our goal is to take back this country:  its honor and ideals, etc.

    Now is as good a time as any to bring this topic up.

    I am a pacifist, I am a progressive.  I have already voted for K/E and am proud of that fact, and yet I will remind and constantly remind everyone else in this big Democratic tent that Kerry owes his current standing in the polls and eventually his presidency to those of us who want to take this party back away from the mushy gray center.

    by Gearhead on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 08:57:11 AM PDT

    •  The Great Reconciliation

      We cannot remain as one nation and have things go all our way, right away.

      American culture changes at a frenetic pace, and in myriad ways. We've left a lot of people behind, and they feel isolated, powerless, scared...

      ...and this makes them vulnerable to opportunism and exploitation.

      A significant portion of our country feels marginalized not out of wealth or power but out of time.

      They wear many faces, albeit most tend to be white.

      They are of all ages, but most are older Americans.

      They come from all backgrounds, but tend to be rural, Southern, and Midwestern.

      They hold many confessions, but most are Protestant Christian.

      Some have money, but most are working class or poor, despite the rhetoric.

      They are the huddled masses of the dominant, Protestant, machine-based, land-working, church-going America that likes rock but not rap, country but not folk music, carnivals but not casinos, quaint but not queer, know-how but not know-it-alls, foreign visits but not foreign move-ins.

      Such persons are easy marks for an agenda that promises to orchestrate a moral and cultural renaissance, by first destroying the existing moral and cultural order.

      What is so distressing is that what conservatives have been convinced to despise -- tolerance, diversity, newness, creativity, innovation, universal moral right -- are the very things most certain to deliver them from what they fear -- loss of identity, loss of influence, loss of control.

      Where values of mutual tolerance of mutual differences, mutually shared and appreciated, are enshrined, we are neighbors, and in about a century or so, when those who style themselves a majority are no longer, they will be welcome -- as neighbors.

      Where such notions are vomited up as liberal tripe, and xenophobia, violent reaction and extreme parochialism prevail, that same span of years will come and go, but by that time the once-dominant culture will be neither dominant, nor its remaining adherents welcome in polite company.

      There are two choices, should the right continue down the unsettling path of this second alternative -- war, which will harm millions and ultimately result in the devastation of this country and the likely wholesale elimination of all that the conservatives hold dear, the good as well as the bad...

      ...or there can be reconciliation, starting now, a great venture that will span this entire century, and perhaps beyond.

      There can be no peace without understanding; the right simply do not understand us, have to large measure been innoculated against even wishing to have dialogue and understanding.

      But we, too, hold responsibility, for in our rush to crush oppression and rid the world of longstanding moral outrage, we have left many of our countrymen behind --- dazed, perplexed,  blamed for their resistance to budge in the direction in which we nudge them, and excoriated when they reflexively lash back.

      Peace is not a matter of crushing the will of dissenters, then proceeding apace with their reeducation. Peace is not beating aside naysayers and shoving recalcitrants to the margins of history. Peace is not hearing the say of others, and blowing them off as ignorant, immoral, or insane.

      These are our countrymen. Sooner or later, we must make our peace...or make our stand.

      Many talk of peace, but what is peace when those who revere it refuse it to their brothers and sisters?

      We would like conservatives to appreciate the possibilities of mutual tolerance, sharing and discussing and profiting from our differences, of seeing how far from lessened, America could be extended to be that much more a part of the Earth and, in a real sense, the Earth could be made that much more a part of America.

      For that is what community means. That is what neighbors do: they get into one another's lives, and by doing so, become invested in one another's well-being.

      The first step in the Great Reconciliation is remembering -- our neighbors on the right are far more agitated about the future as we are, and far more prone to excessive statements and acts. They, not we, are the ones playing defensive, though the offensive tactics and rhetoric make it easy to see otherwise.

      We must help them along, help them see what they are choosing to miss, make the right recognize that it is making a poor choice by boxing itself into private little rallies, and opening their hearts and allegiance to men (and it is almost always men) who note their discomfort, and see nothing but opportunity to catapult themselves to power, and to keep themselves in it.

      Now, the right may choose war, may lash out not once but several times in perceived defense of itself. We abrogate all responsibility if we reward violence with our deaths; we must and will defend ourselves from the addicted and the insane.

      But we must never forget; for there to be peace, for this country to be truly united again, we must never forget that our agitated countrymen are just that..even if they forget, and loudly so, that we are theirs.

      by cskendrick on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:13:01 AM PDT

•  It's a war against extremism

  In truth, this is not a war against terror. I believe our true war is one against extremism.

  Here's why it's a smart frame, and I believe we can change the war to this meme with concerted effort and consistency.

  The people that attacked us on Sep 11, were extremists. They have militant views bolstered by an extreme interpretation of the Koran.

  The people who ran Afghanistan on 9/11 were extremists, also using their extreme views and extreme interpretation of the Koran to micromanage every Afghani citizen's life.

  Kim Jong Il has an extreme view of his own importance, and has brainwashed his population to have the same extreme jingoist perceptions.

  Iran's mullahs also run their country through an extreme interpretation of the Koran. The Wahabbi off Saudi Arabia wield ridiculous power through their extreme interpretation of the Koran.

  Note that I say these are extreme interpretations of the Koran, and though I am repeating myself, it is clear that the emphasis is on the interpretation angle, not the fact that it's the Koran. This is a way of talking about this scourge without denigrating Islam, or whatever the convenient "cause" for these extremists happens to be.

  Just so happens that Islamic youth are down, and religion is a convenient way to control people. Terrorists, extremist thugs, are nothing better than gang leaders, taking advantage of young disenfranchised people with the promise off respect. And that is sick.

  Chechnian rebels, while Muslim, identify more with the liberation angle of their struggle. Islam is a convenient motivator for their worldwide sympathizers. The rebels have an extreme view of what's acceptable in the political world of negotiation. They use terrorism as a tactic.

  Putin has now responded by taking extreme steps to control his government, and further insulate it from influence by the Chechen rebels, and his massive public relations problem.

  Anything, taken to an extreme is bad for health and community. Eating, exercise, religion, sex, consumerism, spirituality... anything can go from neutral/good to bad/harmful/unhealthy.

  Extremism manifests itself everywhere, but is usually harmful only on a personal level. Unfortunately, one of the more public displays of extremism has grown from religions. All religions have an extreme element, and it is the responsibility of the religious leadership to keep extremists in check. Islamic leaders in the Middle East have failed in this regard. To a lesser extent, Islamic leaders have also failed in Asia, the Southern Pacific, Europe, Northern Africa, and North America.

  In America, Christian leaders have failed our country miserably, allowing their thirst for power through government and community control to trump the fight against reason, science, bigotry, and hate. In the womb of their extreme sermons and teachings has grown a bastard interpretation of the Bible which has overtaken American government and policy.

  Jewish leadership has failed to keep Israel in check at times, and failed to lead Israel to a reasonable and fair balance of civility with Palestine. Palestine's Islamic leaders have failed to lead their people to an equitable solution with Israel, preferring the cheap politics of hate fueled by religious fervor, over the rational negotiation of what is, essentially, a land dispute in the court of common law.

  George Bush is an extremist. He believes in an extreme interpretation of the Bible, and, though his lip service belies it, he does not allow for alternate perceptions. He is right, what is there to discuss? Have we not seen this over and over again?

  Bush's extremism bleeds beyond the borders of his Bible. His extremism manifests itself in a black-or-white view of the world. In his high-contrast vision, he cannot and will not entertain the idea that one can be strong and nuanced, powerful and sensitive. The amazing NYT article this weekend confirms this, though we've known all along that Bush is an extremist.

  I say it's time for Kerry to really pump up the message. He needs to say that Bush is wrong, yet again. Because of Bush's tunnel vision, he is unable to see the wider threat to America and all civilization. Bush has failed once again, and it's nothing that can be cured by his staff or mitigation time in a second term. Bush's fundamental philosophies are the reason he can't win the war.

  Because it's not a war on terror. It's a war on extremism.

  And in the meantime, all he's done is create more terror and allow the terrorists to control our policy by proxy. The Patriot act, the use of 9/11 as a campaign prop, the Iraq debacle... ALL have played exactly into the hands of the terrorists. Bush can't help but abet them because he is one of them. Just a different shade.

  But he can't tell, because he is looking for black or white in the whole matter.

  John Kerry, please redefine this war!!! It is a war on extremism.

  by saynuk on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:15:11 AM PDT

•  This would be an excellent topic

  to be discussed after the election is over and Kerry is President.

  by Euroliberal on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:16:48 AM PDT

  •  See my comment above

    It is never the wrong time to discuss this.  We must view the election as a means, not an end in itself.

    by Gearhead on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 09:29:01 AM PDT

    •  basically agree

      and enjoyed all comments so far but I believe this is gonna get lost so easily at a time when people are nervous and so involved with topics that have to do with voting.
      Also, a definite Kerry victory will put the discussion on a different level. Imagine e.g. contested election results. Would there be time to debate ideas or is it gonna be time to FIGHT?

      by Euroliberal on Sat Oct 30, 2004 at 10:13:13 AM PDT