What is "terrorism"? Here's the definition from the Department of Defense, as quoted by Frontline:
'[T]he unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives.'
(source: http://www.pbs.org/...)
Now, let's compare the DoD's definition of terrorism with its own published definition of "victory" in Iraq, which is considered vital in the war on "terrorism":
* Victory in Iraq is Defined in Stages
o Short term, Iraq is making steady progress in fighting terrorists, meeting political milestones, building democratic institutions, and standing up security forces.
o Medium term, Iraq is in the lead defeating terrorists and providing its own security, with a fully constitutional government in place, and on its way to achieving its economic potential.
o Longer term, Iraq is peaceful, united, stable, and secure, well integrated into the international community, and a full partner in the global war on terrorism.
(source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/...)
If we connect the logical dots, therefore, here's what we get. We are fighting a war on the unlawful use or threat of violence to achieve a political, ideological, or religious objective. The front line in that war is Iraq, with other battlefields spread around the globe. We are going to win one of the main battles in this war against what is, essentially, a form of political expression by creating a government in Iraq that fully participates as a peaceful member of the international community. Seems sort of convoluted, doesn't it?
This is due to the fuzziness of our primary objective. How do you fight a war against a form of political expression? For, as we've seen countless times, the unlawful threat or use of force is spread among all political ideologies. Not to mention that those issuing the call to war are guilty in part of "unlawful" use of force to accomplish their political objectives.
I don't think we need to be reminded that, if we're to eliminate unlawful violent political expression, this effort must begin at home. And therein lies the answer to a number of thorny issues raised (but not answered) by those calling for a war on "terrorism". Consider these questions. Have you ever felt like using violence as a means to silence someone because of their political opinions? Have those in power enraged you to the point where you've daydreamed about violence? Why do you feel that way? The answer to that question will provide, I think, an answer to the more general question of why people become terrorists. And, if you've answered yes to any of the questions posed above, then you too are guilty of aiding and abetting "terrorism". Since, as a form of political expression, it has no leader, no army, and no ideological associations of its own. It appears spontaneously when people feel powerless or threatened. It can sprout unaided in any and every corner of the globe for no logical reason. And we're fighting a "war" against it? Doesn't the whole idea of "war" imply a possibly "unlawful" use of force? And by whose laws, anyway? Nelson Mandela and the ANC were long considered "terrorists" by the Apartheid South African government. Are they so now? If not, what changed?
I've posed alot of questions here, but if we are serious about fighting a war against terrorism then we must probe what that actually means and define our terms. I suspect that "terrorism" is a catch-all phrase for a number of dangerous, or merely inconvenient, boogeymen who can be foisted up as icons for us to attack. I think the definition is fuzzy on purpose; otherwise we might get closer to the real objectives of the wars in Iraq and elsewhere.
Perhaps it's the "War on Nasty Dictators", or the "War on Naughty Men in the Middle East", or the "War on Things that go Bump in the Night", or the "War To Make President Bush Relevant". Whatever it is, we're going to lose unless our real war, and its real objectives, are better defined.
Update: I added another choice to the poll -- "Bush's Declining Poll Numbers".