In the New York Times article, “Real Battles and Empty
Metaphors”, Susan Sontag argues that the U.S. War on Terror is a war “with no
foreseeable end”. She even likens it to a war on “cancer, poverty and drugs”.
Because of this similarity, Sontag states that this makes the War on Terror a “metaphor”,
albeit one with “powerful consequences”. Sontag does not stop there, however.
She goes on to say that “Real wars are not metaphors. Real wars have a beginning
and end.”
Earlier in the semester, I disagreed with Sontag. I thought
that she misconstrued the situation and failed to see the necessity to act. I
even went so far as to call the War on Terror a whole new breed of war brought
on by the increased globalization of our world and the trickiness of dealing
with a non-governmental organization.
Although this may be true, today I see the situation
somewhat differently. There was a reason George W. Bush and his aids called the
engagement a “War on Terror” and not simply a war against al-Qaeda, or more
accurately, a war against Iraq or Afghanistan. For a few weeks, I was unsure
what the real reason could be. But then I realized—the U.S. hasn’t declared war
on another country since WWII. Congress never declared the War on Terror to be
a legitimate (Constitutional) war. Congress did not declare war on Iraq or
Afghanistan.
So, I came to the conclusion that there may be an actual
purpose for a metaphorical war. It certainly would make it easier for a
president to decide he doesn’t need Congressional approval for the act. Does a
president need Congressional approval to declare a war on cancer, poverty, or
drugs? No, he doesn’t. So, I believe that there could be a reason to declare a
metaphorical war, other than the reasons Sontag pointed out. Whether or not the
reason is outrageous as Sontag’s other reasons (and whether or not Bush would’ve
been farsighted enough to come up with it), I’ll let you decide.
Mike, this is a very pertinent point. Why has Congress essentially ceased to declare war and ceded this power to the presidency? And why has this happened at the very moment when American power was at its highest point?
ReplyDeletei find this to be troubling and shows the collapsing of the American system. the one thing keeping our country from becoming a dictatorship is the checks and balances of its branches. this though does show why the wording was used to allow action without really declaring war on another country. the goals in these countries were not to achieve surrender and therefore would not even be included in the category of total war and would be classified in as limited war. the war on terror is not without end like she said either how many years did we have to fight small pox without end before we finally defeated it. the people of our country today want to achieve things but the only way people go about it is half measures today. with the use of full measure (not nukes lol think a little smaller, just a little) we could at least hope to achieve a reduction and therefore victory. and with a proper preventive system terrorism can be controlled and weeded out.
ReplyDeleteMark I'll have to agree with you as far as the collapsing of the American system goes, with declaring war on an idea while simultaneously freeing congress from blame if it went south, but I'd have to say the reasons behind it are really schizophrenic. On one hand Fmr. President Bush who may have had ulterior / dubious motives to going to Iraq / Afghanistan, and since it's been used to create a new cold war. Think like this: right after it everybody was afraid their local big business was going to have a plane flown into it and all muslims were going to walk up to them and blow themselves up. Now that it's more than 10 years later we can look back and correlate things like the congressional hearings of the cold war with, first, PATRIOT act and now the recent NDAA. It seems as though those unfortunate events stirred up nostalgia for the cold war era and the power the atmosphere of fear provided.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're wrong about eradicating terrorism with large weapons akin to those just short of nukes. (after all that sort of thinking is one of the main contributors to getting us into this mess in the first place. A better strategy would be to wait it out with minimal action, it's a loose conglomeration of radicals and with enough time would eventually either claim a state of it's own that could be gone to war with or collapse on itself much like how the USSR had in the 90's.
You all have some very interesting points. Mike, I agree with you on your point that we haven't declared war on another country since WWII, and thus the reason we called it a war on terror was to avoid certain steps in taking action against Al Qaeda. I wouldn't go as far to say that its the collapse of the American system like mark said. 9/11 was a very unique event in that, even though terrorism was nothing new, it woke us up to the realization that terrorism is this real thing that could put civilian lives within our country at risk. It may be because of my age and the time in which 9/11 happened, but it feels as though the countries "eyes" as a whole were opened. Over 10 years later our eyes are still open and I don't feel as though they will ever close. I don't feel as though the post 9/11 effect will ever go away, especially as we go over the beliefs of Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I don't believe that their dislike of the west will ever cease, whether we follow their requests to leave their holy lands or not. I think Nicholas makes a good point that our problems will not be solved with weapons just under that of nukes, but I also don't believe taking a minimum roll will work either. I don't believe Al Qaeda will ever become its own state or claim a state. Al Qaeda is too disorganized and spread out to ever fully become independent, and I think this is also one of their tactics. They know that not having a state makes it difficult for the US to fight a war, and I think they will use this to their advantage now and in the future. What we should do I'd take up a roll somewhere between a minimum roll and an extreme roll. We should use the CIA and other agencies to infiltrate Al Qaeda and learn of new plots. Once we ,earn of something, we should take action to stop whatever plans they may be creating. Obviously none of these answers aree sufficient in desribing how we can fight terrorism, but everyone has their own way of looking at it and what would work best.
ReplyDelete