James S. Robbins has an article up at NRO about the names that have been proposed for the War on Terror, and the debate on whether it truly is a war or not. It's a good article, and he sums up that we are truly in a war.
This points to the most important reason to call this struggle a war — because the enemy does. Osama bin Laden declared war on the United States and its allies twice, in 1996 and 1998. He and others attacked US and allied interests numerous times in the tears leading up to 9/11. We placed ourselves at a clear disadvantage by not accepting that when violent, highly motivated group such as al Qaeda declare war, they really do mean it. If we behave as though they don’t, we do so at our peril.
It would be an act of great hubris to stop referring to the conflict with the terrorists as a war. It would implicitly say that they are not threat enough to warrant that designation. Enough for a struggle, maybe a tussle, but no more. Maybe in some ways they aren’t; we have done a great job in disrupting their networks, capturing or killing their leaders, interdicting their finances, and breaking up their planned attacks. The terrorists are not the threat to our homeland that they were six years ago. But if we give up “war,” what then? Will the public stay focused? Will the bureaucracy stay motivated, to the extent it still is? Will we be able to take the kind of resolute action we need to take as opportunities to take our terrorists abroad present themselves? Or will the calcification return — the old patterns of thinking — less focus on mission effectiveness, more on procedural detail — less innovation, more careerism. Giving up on the notion that we are at war with people who are pledged to our destruction is to invite complacency. Eventually the imagination would again fail. And the consequences next time could be far more deadly.
It’s a war all right. Ask any terrorist.
-----------------------
Stay Awake
Pay Attention
Always Vote
No comments:
Post a Comment