Sunday, March 26, 2006
The "War" Against Terror
From the beginning in 2001 I was disturbed by President Bush's use of the expression "war on terror." I thought then and still do that he should have called for a police action rather than a war. I've been trying to think of a way to express my disagreement with a "WAR" against terror. To my delight, a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times today expressed the thought very well, certainly better than I could. Here is the letter:
[March 26, 2006]
Boot suggests that Iraq is not yet in a civil war. I agree. Following this line, how then can he, or any reasonable person, suppose that there can be a "war" against terror? There is no strategic objective to win. There is no specific force to overwhelm. Terrorism is a technique, not an opponent.
In our society, terrorism is a crime and would be more efficiently and effectively treated as such.
However, even a false war can have casualties. Calling it a "war on terror" has suppressed so much democratic discourse that we need a truth and reconciliation commission to reclaim the vigor of our own democracy.
CHRIS HARGET
Campbell, California
