Changing 'War on Terror' Name Not Enough

The government needs to change the way it talks and thinks, reframing the "war on terror" to the "war against al Qaeda," according to law professor Glenn Sulmasy, writing in the San Francisco Chronicle today. It's an interesting argument – so far as it goes – which isn't far enough.

A "war on terror" is not likely to ever permit the chance for victory – it sounds too much like the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty." Such national efforts are noble and worthwhile, but there remains no chance to declare a conclusive end to these severe social problems. Similarly, victory is unattainable against "terror," per se. By clearly defining our fight against al Qaeda, however, we create the potential to eventually claim victory over an entity – one that uses terror on the international level against the United States and its interests. Defeating this group is attainable. Cognizant that there is no nation to negotiate with and that this is an enemy unlike any other in world history (a non-state actor with the desire, resources and capabilities of inflicting massive damage on an international scale), we can diminish its abilities to such a degree that the network has no real presence within the international community.[...]

Because it puts a clear face on the enemy we are fighting, declaring our struggle as the "war against al Qaeda" will help foster international support and enhance domestic consensus. Many in the Arab world and around the globe will better understand the United States' mission and strategy. This would also better reveal al Qaeda for what it is – an extremist political group that has hijacked a religion and attempts to disrupt the world order – or at a minimum, the Middle East power structure.

But even then, why should the most powerful nation in the world be giving these cave-dwelling, death-worshiping religious fanatics the glory and publicity of having a war declared against them? Instead, label them an enemy, destroy their fundraising, hunt them down in the hills with special forces and figure out, diplomatically, how to ideologically starve them of support from the broader Muslim world (think domestic wedge policy issues such as late-term abortion and flag-burning and use those tactics to divide and conquer).

But declaring war on them? That simply feeding the animals. It's what they want.

Unfortunately, I think having some grand enemy to fight against and hate is also what the chest thumpers (like CNN's Glenn Beck and Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds) in this country want too.

Al Qaeda has taught us some valuable lessons – in a world where we are the only nation's superpower, we're not going to be getting into any conventional war anywhere anytime soon. No country would field troops against the U.S. (save possibly North Korea if we attacked first).

Radical groups, whether they be self-styled militant anti-federalists like Timothy McVeigh or religious fanatics like the 9/11 hijackers, will try to find ways to turn launch devestating attacks without having billion dollar Future Combat Systems at their disposal. So yes, we need to think about how to stop such attacks from happening and preventing the worst of the weapons created by nation states – nuclear bombs and biological weapons – from falling into the hands of people willing to target civilians.

But that threat is likely never going to dissipate, whether it's al Qaeda or some rogue Communist party longing for the salad-days of Stalin.

The question is do we as a country really want to have an enemy – do we draw our meaning from having an oppositional force – or are we willing to figure out how to get on with life?

Photo: Octavio5150