The Rhetoric of the War on Terror
Roughly five years ago, I was at a meeting for a group of teaching assistants when the professor's secretary ran into the room. There was something on TV we had to see. We went into the other room and found that a terrible accident had occurred -- a plane had hit the World Trade Center. As we continued to watch, wondering what had happened, a second plane hit, and it was clear that, whatever had happened, it wasn't an accident. One of those watching cried out "This means war!" and I, in my naivete answered, "Who are we going to declare war on?" The answer to that question unfolded over the next few years -- apparently, anyone we want.
We are not at war. I blame the current rhetoric (for that is all it is, rhetoric) on Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. No one was really confused by that; it was clear he was using hyperbole. But then came the War on Crime and the War on Drugs, and it was less clear how much hyperbole was being used. The loss of civil rights often connected with war came to be connected with these pseudo-wars. And now we have the War on Terror, which looks very much like a war. And, understandably, people are confused; confused because, in addition to being at war with terror, we are at war with Iraq as well. But we cannot be at war with an abstract idea. Germany we could defeat, because it could surrender. Terrorism cannot surrender, cannot negotiate, and well never cease to exist. Terrorism has been around for 100 years, and it will be around for 100 more years.
For how long do you want to give up your civil rights? We often hear that we should, or that we have to. If this were war, they might have a point. But there is no end to this war. Should we sacrifice our liberty, the very thing they hate us for, until the end of time? What about the civil rights of others? Perhaps you don't care. But it's a short step from putting all muslims into internment camps to putting everyone who is 'anti-american' in internment camps. After all, muslims aren't the only terrorists! How many freedoms do you want to give up? Perhaps the freedom of speech is fine. You didn't really want to criticize the government anyway. What about the right to bear arms, or the freedom of assembly? What about the right to due process? Don't you want to be able to do something when the government decides you're an enemy combatant?
I don't like torture. When I took political theory in college, our midterm asked, "Of all the philosopher we've studied, who was the least Christian?" Partly tongue-in-cheek (but only partly), I argued it was Augustine, because he approved of torture. I don't think torture is ever justified, and the fact that our moral leadership has largely either been silent as the President of the United States seeks official approval for torture -- I don't have the words.
We are not in a fight against muslims. Well, we are. I'll admit, it's confusing. It so happens that, among those people who want to blow up large buildings in the US, most are muslim. Then again, to the best of my recollection, we've had three buildings blown up here, and only two of those were blown up by muslims. But it seems to be axiomatic these days that most terrorists are muslims. So it's not false to say we are fighting against muslims. But the inference doesn't work the other way. Most muslims are not terrorists. And certainly most muslims in the United States are not terrorists. So it's also not false to say we are not fighting muslims. Consider WWII. Were we at war with Europeans? Certainly. But that didn't mean we were at war with France. This is why statements like "There are more mosques in England than churches" are misleading. The question is, what do those mosques teach? Just because it's a mosque doesn't mean it's a breeding ground for terrorists.
We need to ignore the rhetoric that a feeble administration uses to try and maintain power. We need to ignore the rhetoric that that administration uses to justify vile practices world-wide. We need to look past the rhetoric and realize that, just because someone is a Republican or a president doesn't mean they're especially moral.
*note: This was inspired by the letter allegedly by Maj. Gen. Vernon Chong. If you want, you can read it here.
We are not at war. I blame the current rhetoric (for that is all it is, rhetoric) on Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. No one was really confused by that; it was clear he was using hyperbole. But then came the War on Crime and the War on Drugs, and it was less clear how much hyperbole was being used. The loss of civil rights often connected with war came to be connected with these pseudo-wars. And now we have the War on Terror, which looks very much like a war. And, understandably, people are confused; confused because, in addition to being at war with terror, we are at war with Iraq as well. But we cannot be at war with an abstract idea. Germany we could defeat, because it could surrender. Terrorism cannot surrender, cannot negotiate, and well never cease to exist. Terrorism has been around for 100 years, and it will be around for 100 more years.
For how long do you want to give up your civil rights? We often hear that we should, or that we have to. If this were war, they might have a point. But there is no end to this war. Should we sacrifice our liberty, the very thing they hate us for, until the end of time? What about the civil rights of others? Perhaps you don't care. But it's a short step from putting all muslims into internment camps to putting everyone who is 'anti-american' in internment camps. After all, muslims aren't the only terrorists! How many freedoms do you want to give up? Perhaps the freedom of speech is fine. You didn't really want to criticize the government anyway. What about the right to bear arms, or the freedom of assembly? What about the right to due process? Don't you want to be able to do something when the government decides you're an enemy combatant?
I don't like torture. When I took political theory in college, our midterm asked, "Of all the philosopher we've studied, who was the least Christian?" Partly tongue-in-cheek (but only partly), I argued it was Augustine, because he approved of torture. I don't think torture is ever justified, and the fact that our moral leadership has largely either been silent as the President of the United States seeks official approval for torture -- I don't have the words.
We are not in a fight against muslims. Well, we are. I'll admit, it's confusing. It so happens that, among those people who want to blow up large buildings in the US, most are muslim. Then again, to the best of my recollection, we've had three buildings blown up here, and only two of those were blown up by muslims. But it seems to be axiomatic these days that most terrorists are muslims. So it's not false to say we are fighting against muslims. But the inference doesn't work the other way. Most muslims are not terrorists. And certainly most muslims in the United States are not terrorists. So it's also not false to say we are not fighting muslims. Consider WWII. Were we at war with Europeans? Certainly. But that didn't mean we were at war with France. This is why statements like "There are more mosques in England than churches" are misleading. The question is, what do those mosques teach? Just because it's a mosque doesn't mean it's a breeding ground for terrorists.
We need to ignore the rhetoric that a feeble administration uses to try and maintain power. We need to ignore the rhetoric that that administration uses to justify vile practices world-wide. We need to look past the rhetoric and realize that, just because someone is a Republican or a president doesn't mean they're especially moral.
*note: This was inspired by the letter allegedly by Maj. Gen. Vernon Chong. If you want, you can read it here.
posted by Mad Jurist at 2:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home