The America I believe in is a democracy built on freedom. Not just freedom for some, but freedom for all. It applies the “rule of law” uniformly in all its dealings both domestic and foreign. It does not invade countries, depose leaders, torture citizens, and set itself up as the oppressor of third world nations for its own self interest. Yet America, with the sanction of its legislative bodies and by extension the American people, has done all of the above. How do we as thinking, moral beings justify this course of action? Perhaps, before defining a path forward, we need to open a dialogue on how we got here, trapped between Iraq and a hard decision to leave.
I am certainly not alone in believing that the war against Iraq was one of the single biggest policy mistakes in the history of the United States. The cost in money and human life, if you include the Iraqis, is rapidly becoming incalculable. The further loss in international stature, credibility, and moral leadership is perhaps irreparable. As much as I love this country I am often sad to be an American in today’s world. Although, it is my general impression that most of the public is now against the war and would like us to leave, our political leadership on both sides seems to lack the moral courage to do anything but continue. There seems to be some vague, pervasive idea that somehow we might still “win” something, but no one can describe in any meaningful way what this might be. The general consensus seems to be, “We should not be there, we cannot win, we cannot leave, and so we will just do nothing but stay the course.” Does this make any sense?
In this blog I would like to address the basis of the argument that was used to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people. The provocation, as everyone knows, was the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. It was a horrific and immoral event. But when George Bush spoke publicly of his plans for retribution he used the phrase, “War on terror.” Now “war” as opposed to “aggression” is a term generally used to refer to conflicts between nation states. “Terror” or “terrorism” on the other hand, is the action of lone individuals and/or organizations. (I am specifically excluding nationally sponsored terrorism as this could form a just basis for warlike behavior.) To declare “war on terror” seems to me to be a relatively meaningless statement, although it does serve conveniently to raise the conflict to a higher level than would be justified by a terrorist attack. That is, unless the purpose of the phrase was to justify an attack on nation states. In hindsight, this seems to be the case. This topic is covered nicely in a paper by the philosopher Noam Chomsky entitled “War on Terror” delivered at the Amnesty International Lecture hosted by Trinity College in January 2006. (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf)
What troubles me is the lack of critical thinking which occurred shortly after the attack and persists even to this day, regarding the basis of the argument used to justify the attack on Afghanistan and then later Iraq. I understand the nation was grieving over the events of 9/11, but “war” is not the rational response to “terrorism.” The intelligent response to terrorism is to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. In fact, to attack nation states is to play into the hands of the terrorists by justifying their claims to the communities amongst which they hide. And what have we achieved in the name of “War on Terror”? We have failed to arrest the architect of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center; we have invaded several countries creating complete chaos; and we have participated in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of over one million! This was all in the name of “War on Terror,” a kind of westernized version of “Jihad.” Why didn’t the Senate, or the Congress, or the press, or the people say, “George, this doesn’t make sense, what are you saying? What is a ‘War on Terror’? Who are you fighting? To whom does ‘Terror’ refer?”
OK, I know what you are thinking. This is politics, and not a skeptical issue. I’m not sure I agree with that position. This is a hoax! And it is a cleverly designed hoax that we, the American people, should have detected and stopped at the onset. The specific language, “War on Terror”, was intended to fool us into thinking the government could take actions beyond the scope of the event which provoked it. It allowed the government to wage war and bypass civil liberties that are at the core of our Constitution, such as freedom of speech, assumption of innocence, and trial without representation. The Bush Administration even interpreted “War on Terror” to mean they had the right to ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention relating to detention and torture of prisoners whose guilt had not been determined. In effect, this was not a war until we made it one.
The "War on Terror" was an intentional hoax of gigantic proportion! This is a hoax on which millions of lives depended. Shouldn’t the rules of skeptical thinking inform us about statements like this? Shouldn’t legislators and the media question our use of language when the language doesn’t make sense? If the president had declared “War on Terror” against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, wouldn’t we have thought he was daft? But we said nothing. The phrase “War on Terror” became the basis for an argument for the justification of the government’s actions. It was an argument from consequences; we were attacked by terrorists so we are going to war on terror. It was a straw man in that it simplified what is a very complex historical, social, and political situation into something simple and easy to deal with. “Let’s get ‘em!” But it was not simple and we find ourselves enmeshed in a quagmire from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves. If we have any hope of getting out of this, we need to go back to the beginning and try to understand how we were duped into getting there in the first place.
Caught up in the hurt and anger over 9/11 we suspended our disbelief. We naively assumed the Bush Administration would seek out justice by bringing the terrorists to trial, and attempt to reduce the threat of terrorism instead of increasing it by aggressive and unjustified actions. If we are to end the war and help redress the wrongs we have committed in the name of “War on Terror” we must first change our rhetoric. We need to drop the “War on Terror” and re-define our position. Our entire understanding of the world is through the use of language. The language we use in framing our ideas is important. If we seek "war" we will find it. I'd prefer we seek "justice" instead, as this is consistent with our national charter. "Justice for terrorists" is a far better goal than "War on Terrorism." If justice, not war, is our goal, we need to work through international organizations like the United Nations to bring international terrorists to justice. We must change direction, tone down our rhetoric and address a comprehensive strategy to engage the world in our struggle to bring peace, and not war, to the Middle East.
In the midst of the Iraq war I often find myself drifting back to thoughts of the 60s during the Vietnam War, when the phrase “Make love, not war” came into vogue. You don’t hear much about peace and love anymore in the rhetoric of today’s world. Are we to abandon such thoughts and live forever in fear and terror? It’s not a world I’m interested in. We can seek justice and peace at the same time. They are not incompatible. But it will take a new language, a new dialogue, between America and the world. It’s time for those of us seeking a new direction to speak out. Let us hope, “We won’t be fooled again.”
I am certainly not alone in believing that the war against Iraq was one of the single biggest policy mistakes in the history of the United States. The cost in money and human life, if you include the Iraqis, is rapidly becoming incalculable. The further loss in international stature, credibility, and moral leadership is perhaps irreparable. As much as I love this country I am often sad to be an American in today’s world. Although, it is my general impression that most of the public is now against the war and would like us to leave, our political leadership on both sides seems to lack the moral courage to do anything but continue. There seems to be some vague, pervasive idea that somehow we might still “win” something, but no one can describe in any meaningful way what this might be. The general consensus seems to be, “We should not be there, we cannot win, we cannot leave, and so we will just do nothing but stay the course.” Does this make any sense?
In this blog I would like to address the basis of the argument that was used to sell the invasion of Iraq to the American people. The provocation, as everyone knows, was the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center. It was a horrific and immoral event. But when George Bush spoke publicly of his plans for retribution he used the phrase, “War on terror.” Now “war” as opposed to “aggression” is a term generally used to refer to conflicts between nation states. “Terror” or “terrorism” on the other hand, is the action of lone individuals and/or organizations. (I am specifically excluding nationally sponsored terrorism as this could form a just basis for warlike behavior.) To declare “war on terror” seems to me to be a relatively meaningless statement, although it does serve conveniently to raise the conflict to a higher level than would be justified by a terrorist attack. That is, unless the purpose of the phrase was to justify an attack on nation states. In hindsight, this seems to be the case. This topic is covered nicely in a paper by the philosopher Noam Chomsky entitled “War on Terror” delivered at the Amnesty International Lecture hosted by Trinity College in January 2006. (http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf)
What troubles me is the lack of critical thinking which occurred shortly after the attack and persists even to this day, regarding the basis of the argument used to justify the attack on Afghanistan and then later Iraq. I understand the nation was grieving over the events of 9/11, but “war” is not the rational response to “terrorism.” The intelligent response to terrorism is to find the perpetrators and bring them to justice. In fact, to attack nation states is to play into the hands of the terrorists by justifying their claims to the communities amongst which they hide. And what have we achieved in the name of “War on Terror”? We have failed to arrest the architect of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center; we have invaded several countries creating complete chaos; and we have participated in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people and the displacement of over one million! This was all in the name of “War on Terror,” a kind of westernized version of “Jihad.” Why didn’t the Senate, or the Congress, or the press, or the people say, “George, this doesn’t make sense, what are you saying? What is a ‘War on Terror’? Who are you fighting? To whom does ‘Terror’ refer?”
OK, I know what you are thinking. This is politics, and not a skeptical issue. I’m not sure I agree with that position. This is a hoax! And it is a cleverly designed hoax that we, the American people, should have detected and stopped at the onset. The specific language, “War on Terror”, was intended to fool us into thinking the government could take actions beyond the scope of the event which provoked it. It allowed the government to wage war and bypass civil liberties that are at the core of our Constitution, such as freedom of speech, assumption of innocence, and trial without representation. The Bush Administration even interpreted “War on Terror” to mean they had the right to ignore the rules of the Geneva Convention relating to detention and torture of prisoners whose guilt had not been determined. In effect, this was not a war until we made it one.
The "War on Terror" was an intentional hoax of gigantic proportion! This is a hoax on which millions of lives depended. Shouldn’t the rules of skeptical thinking inform us about statements like this? Shouldn’t legislators and the media question our use of language when the language doesn’t make sense? If the president had declared “War on Terror” against the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing, wouldn’t we have thought he was daft? But we said nothing. The phrase “War on Terror” became the basis for an argument for the justification of the government’s actions. It was an argument from consequences; we were attacked by terrorists so we are going to war on terror. It was a straw man in that it simplified what is a very complex historical, social, and political situation into something simple and easy to deal with. “Let’s get ‘em!” But it was not simple and we find ourselves enmeshed in a quagmire from which we cannot easily extricate ourselves. If we have any hope of getting out of this, we need to go back to the beginning and try to understand how we were duped into getting there in the first place.
Caught up in the hurt and anger over 9/11 we suspended our disbelief. We naively assumed the Bush Administration would seek out justice by bringing the terrorists to trial, and attempt to reduce the threat of terrorism instead of increasing it by aggressive and unjustified actions. If we are to end the war and help redress the wrongs we have committed in the name of “War on Terror” we must first change our rhetoric. We need to drop the “War on Terror” and re-define our position. Our entire understanding of the world is through the use of language. The language we use in framing our ideas is important. If we seek "war" we will find it. I'd prefer we seek "justice" instead, as this is consistent with our national charter. "Justice for terrorists" is a far better goal than "War on Terrorism." If justice, not war, is our goal, we need to work through international organizations like the United Nations to bring international terrorists to justice. We must change direction, tone down our rhetoric and address a comprehensive strategy to engage the world in our struggle to bring peace, and not war, to the Middle East.
In the midst of the Iraq war I often find myself drifting back to thoughts of the 60s during the Vietnam War, when the phrase “Make love, not war” came into vogue. You don’t hear much about peace and love anymore in the rhetoric of today’s world. Are we to abandon such thoughts and live forever in fear and terror? It’s not a world I’m interested in. We can seek justice and peace at the same time. They are not incompatible. But it will take a new language, a new dialogue, between America and the world. It’s time for those of us seeking a new direction to speak out. Let us hope, “We won’t be fooled again.”
No comments:
Post a Comment