War on Terror into the Dustbin of History?
 |
James Joyner | Thursday, January 15, 2009 |
In both a Guardian op-ed and a speech in Mumbai, both today, British foreign secretary David Milibrand says that the “war on terror” was a bad idea.
In my New Atlanticist essay, “Time to Lose War on Terror?” I disagree.
About the Author: James Joyner is the publisher of Outside the Beltway and the managing editor of the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer, Desert Storm vet, and college professor with a PhD in political science from The University of Alabama. He lives just outside the Beltway in Alexandria, Virginia with his wife and infant daughter.
Follow James on FriendFeed | Twitter | Digg
- War on Terror into the Dustbin of History?
- India-Pakistan War Unlikely, So is Peace
- Who’s Responsible for Mumbai Attacks?
- Profound Changes in U.S. Foreign Policy?
- Pakistan Raids LeT Training Camp – Mumbai Mastermind Captured?
- Cutting Defense to Fund National Security?
- Saving the Republican Foreign Policy Establishment
- The Roiling India-Pakistan Situation
- Indian Government Names Mumbai Suspects
- Obama Continues Pakistan Policy He Recommended
- Paradox of Choice Paradoxically Untrue
- Private Forecasters Support Claim That Stimulus Worked
- Entertaining Kids During the Holidays
- How Much Will Escalation Cost?
- No Party of No
- Thought of the Day
- Queer International Studies
- OTB Latenight – r.e.m.
- Krugman on the Debt and Deficits
- A Question About Bonuses and Bailouts
Strategic ambiguity has its advantages.
You said in your NA piece:
Seven-plus years later, I haven't the slightest idea what the GWOT entails.
That, not the phrase itself, is the problem.
To some extent, I have to disagree, because it is not the phrase, so much as the thought processes behind it and the phrase is indicative of that thinking.
For starters, as dangerous as Al Quaeda is, they are no where near the threat to us as Germany and Japan were in WW II. To raise them to that level imparts a certain "legitamacy" to thier "cause" and creates a great recruiting tool for them to use.
Besides, how does one declare war against an idealogy or a tactic? And as Dave said,
Strategic ambiguity has its advantages.
Especially for the "military-industrial complex".
I can't really see any alternative to what we did after the 9/11 attack except to send tons of American troops into Afghanistan (which would have taken longer) as opposed to providing air cover for the dissident former warlords. America had to wipe out the Taliban regime and try to hit at Bin Laden, or our blood would have been in the water for any group out there with a grievance against the US. We couldn't simply work on our own security like how the Spanish did after the 3/11 attacks - the US is the hegemon.
Of course, that all changed in 2002, when they decided to get ready to go after Iraq. I still think that was needless escalation.
You'd be right, though, to question how effective actually fighting a military "War on Terror" (sort of like how we've been fighting a war on drugs, with military aid and support in South America) actually is. There were a number of signs of the 9/11 attacks, after all, before they happened - it's interesting to think what would have happened had, say, the INS picked up on the expired visas of some of the plotters, and grabbed them to send home.
Let's see. You have a post that is academic twaddle. The Foreign Secretary of HMG has sais your phrase is twaddle.
Tough choice.
Comments are Closed
