Terrorism

January 7th, 2010

Mr. Cheney’s War

Written by: Stephen Erickson, Columnist

In the aftermath of the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Flight 253 over Detroit, former Vice President Dick Cheney remarked, it is “clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war.” Cheney needs to be reminded that seriousness of intent does not pivot on semantics and that misapplied zeal can yield bad results, as it often did during the Bush years. Much that has gone wrong in the “war” on terror can be explained by the mentality that insists we are at “war.”

The word “war” is a term frequently misapplied or unused when it is entirely appropriate. In the 20th Century the United States fought two bloody “conflicts” – one in Korea and the other in Viet Nam – which were, we are told, not really “wars.” “Conflicts?” Husbands and wives have “marital conflicts,” politicians have “conflicts of interests” and, when one is not sure whether to order the Big Mac or the Filet-O-Fish Sandwich, one is “conflicted.” These situations obviously have little in common with what went on in Korea and Indochina. Likewise, the two Iraqi wars and the current war in Afghanistan are not technically “wars,” since war was never legally declared, never mind that the United States toppled foreign governments with military force in both places.

Not calling Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan “wars” allowed American politicians to get around the persnickety clause in the Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, that requires the US Congress to declare war before US troops are deliberately sent into long-term combat against enemies of the United States. The medals for courage will go to our soldiers, and not Members of Congress, who can no longer find the stomach to cut spending or resist special interests, never mind declarations of war. Vice President Cheney, who cherishes Executive authority, never suggested that the United States, through Congress, legally declare war on the nations we attacked, but now he demands that Barack Obama declare war on something as amorphous as “terror.”

By the way, Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution contains language tailored for situations like terrorism. Congress is specifically empowered “To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations [italics added]. ” This is followed immediately by giving Congress authority “To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” The founding fathers would not have understood acts of stateless terrorism as acts of war any more than they did piracy. They would likewise wonder why Congress feels free to abandon its explicitly defined constitutional responsibilities.

In modern parlance and practice, therefore, we don’t declare war when in fact we are about to send soldiers abroad to attack other countries. However, we do declare war on problems, like “poverty” or “drugs” or “terrorism,” lest there be any question that we are really, really, serious about these things. The “War on Poverty” (along with the Vietnam “Conflict”) was a feature of the Johnson Administration. Poverty won. The War on Drugs was launched by the Nixon Administration. Drugs won. Do we really want to add “terrorism” to this list?

Declaring “war” on terrorism unnecessarily elevates the likes of Al Qaeda. In war, the United States played a major role in defeating such powerful enemies as Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. We faced down the mighty Soviet Union, with its vast nuclear arsenal, during the Cold War. Do we really want to raise the status of Al Qaeda to the level of these enemies? It is as if a great boxer like Joe Fraser or Mohammed Ali declared he was going to take on some scrawny street fighter with a history of hitting people in the back of the head with a steel pipe. Such sociopaths must be dealt with in the dark alleys where they fester but they should not be spotlighted in the arena where their status will be implicitly raised to that of a powerful player in the world.

Language conveys meaning that can influence or reflect policy. George W. Bush certainly did wage a “war” on terror. He invaded Afghanistan and removed the Taliban, which was the appropriate response to a regime that sheltered Al Qaeda. But Bush also invaded Iraq, he said, because Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. There is no reason to believe that the Bush Administration knew Saddam had no WMD, but the underlying neo-conservative strategic vision, developed after 911, was to install a democracy in the middle of the Middle East. The neo-cons expected that Muslim dictatorships would then fall, one after another like dominoes, resulting in the democratization and liberalization of the entire Islamic world once the demonstration model in Iraq was set up. This is not really a conservative foreign policy; it is starry-eyed neo-Wilsonianism. But it was also highly aggressive, utilized America’s powerful military, and cost dearly in dollars and lives. It was indeed a “war” on terror designed to conquer the enemy.

Critics of neo-conservatism rightly argue that the Bush Administration gave Al Qaeda’s Osama Bin Ladin exactly what he wanted: a clash of civilizations in which every Muslim boy would be pressed to side either with his Muslim brothers or the invading “Crusaders.” As the youth of the Islamic world watched on Al Jazeera, the bodies piled up in Iraq, a scenario that could not have pleased Bin Ladin more. It is true that many radicals were killed by US soldiers, but many more were probably created by the invasion of Iraq, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates, which is among the holiest for Islam.

To give the neo-conservatives their due, Iraqi democracy is working better than many expected. And the turbulence in Iran may suggest a teetering domino of the sort they expected. Just how much rebellion there would be in Iran had the US not invaded Iraq cannot be known, but the neo-cons may yet have something to crow about here.

The consequences of tumultuous events in Iraq’s and Iran’s recent histories are far from played out, but one thing is certain: the United States, with its war-fighting mentality, has neglected homeland defense at the expense of military offense. Even if the neo-conservatives’ wildest dreams came true, and the Middle East was transformed, legions of terrorists would still be eager, and even more so, to strike at the United States. A “war” on terrorism cannot be won. America needs defenses and the proper mentality to help us outlast our terrorist adversaries.

The opposition in the streets of Iran should remind us in the United States what this conflict is all about and how to fight it. The West is in a battle of ideals, liberal democracy versus Islamo-Fascism. When Iranian government-backed thugs chant “Death to Israel, Death to America!” the Iranian opposition has been known to chant back, “Death to Russia! Death to China!” They seem to understand how the lines are drawn better than we do ourselves at times. The Bush Administration certainly had in mind to wage ideological war, but invading armies, heaps of collateral civilian dead, torture and the brutality of Abu Graib trashed America’s image in the world. The great conservative President Ronald Reagan more clearly understood the power of American ideals. Reagan, following the Biblical lead of Jonathan Winthrop, spoke of American civilization as a “shining city upon a hill,” an example for all of humanity.

Cheney and the new conservatives decry Obama’s plan to try the mastermind of 911, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, along with four other accused terrorists, in civilian court in New York. To be sure, the Obama Administration’s decision in this case is fraught with danger. Let’s hope the partisans on Obama’s team fully understand that America, and not George W. Bush, will be put on trial too. The defense will feature instances of torture, especially all the incidences of water boarding. The civilian trial of the five accused 911 terrorists may prove to be a mistake, but the impulse behind the decision is correct. President Obama understands that the example of American values, especially the rule of law and the universal right to a fair trial, is a powerful device that reasserts American moral authority.

In the case of fighting terrorism, “war” is not the answer because the idea elevates the terrorists, fosters a mentality that relies on aggressive military action, and because such a “war” cannot be won in the traditional sense. To outlast the twisted murders who kill innocent people in the name of God, the United States, while shoring up its vulnerabilities, must be true to the values that distinguish us from them.