I didn’t see any discussion in the Australian media of a mid-January piece by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband in The Guardian, where he argues that the “war on terror” was a most unfortunate phrase, and quite counterproductive. Later, Miliband clarified that the British government had deliberately eschewed its use for some time. It would be interesting to take a close look at the rhetoric of the Rudd government, and of Barack Obama, to see whether they’ve been using it. Miliband’s clarification is certainly most welcome.
The more we lump terrorist groups together and draw the battle lines as a simple binary struggle between moderates and extremists, or good and evil, the more we play into the hands of those seeking to unify groups with little in common. Terrorist groups need to be tackled at root, interdicting flows of weapons and finance, exposing the shallowness of their claims, channelling their followers into democratic politics.
The “war on terror” also implied that the correct response was primarily military. But as General Petraeus said to me and others in Iraq, the coalition there could not kill its way out of the problems of insurgency and civil strife.
Of course, these sorts of points have been made for a long time by a lot of the more sane participants in the debate, who were loudly denounced as akin to the enemy within by some. It’s good to see the tide turning at the governmental level.
Update: Speculation that Barack Obama will also be retiring the phrase “war on terror”.
I would expect (hope? maybe the better word) that their intelligence agencies and foreign services have been telling them this for years. But then …maybe I am too much the optimist.
The other thing they should be aware of – but they won’t say in public? Al Quaeda is not an existential threat to any western nation. But Russia might be. Where then should you expect our foreign policy efforts be concentrated?
“Terrorist groups need to be tackled at root, interdicting flows of weapons and finance, exposing the shallowness of their claims, channelling their followers into democratic politics.”
And er, “…not invading their countries…”.
War on Terror over?
How about,..No.
Including the people who made this:
http://www.waronterrortheboardgame.com/
(Special discounts for unemployed, discredited Neocons?)
Interesting that Obama, in his interview with Arab TV, acknowledged that “..the US must not dictate terms as we have done in the past.”
Since this is clearly a thoughtful man who speaks English well (unlike his predecessor)I nearly cheered.
The “war on (insert problem du jour)” terminology has been commandeered repeatedly by Kevin Rudd to describe numerous policy responses, even when the issues involved were relatively mundane. Following the writer’s logic, the correct responses to all of those are also implicitly military. Could the Rudd government “kill its way out of the problems of” unemployment, or whaling, for example?
I think that’s drawing a bit of a long bow, Tony. The “war on terror” was always about actual military action, not a metaphor.
That’s what I think Miliband is saying, Chav.
Not necessarily, Mark. Bush cranked up domestic security in all sorts of ways after 9/11. That’s got to be a legitimate front of the ‘war on terror’ that couldn’t be classed as a military response.
An example I just heard about: that mobile phones aren’t allowed into this weekend’s superbowl (a game of interest to AFL followers because of ex-Geelong captain Ben Graham’s involvement – as punter for the Cardinals) because they can be used as remote bomb triggers.
Electronic devices — Spectators are strongly urged not to bring electronic devices of any sort into the Stadium. Any electronic device will be thoroughly inspected causing delays of the individual spectator, as well as other patrons. Electronic devices include, but are not limited to, cellular telephones, pagers, miniature televisions and radios, and personal digital assistants (PDA’s).
http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/faninformation
Ok, I get what you’re saying now, Tony. But I think Miliband’s point is that the metaphor as well as the actuality was damaging. Perhaps governments should eschew such language altogether?
Update: Speculation that Barack Obama will also be retiring the phrase “war on terror”.
“Perhaps governments should eschew such language altogether?”
Wow, wouldn’t that be the great leap forward?
Maybe an end to the “war on drugs” is on the cards as well. Obama may well have an interest in doing something about the expensive and failed American prison system that holds black and drug related inmates out of all proportion to any other race or ‘crime’.
They could but it wouldn’t be a very nice thing to do.
I’m sure terrorists the world over are alarmed by this semantic debate. Also, I’m sure there was more to Petraeus’ success in Iraq than just killing, but there was definitely killing, in some war-like process involving terrorist targets.
Mr Milliband makes sense. As a Cold War hobbyist, I still can’t get over the fact that his paternal ancestor was an active Marxist writer. Editing the “Socialist Register” was it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Miliband
Anyway, the acts of the father should not be visited upon the son.
“I’m sure terrorists the world over are alarmed by this semantic debate.”
Oh how incredibly droll, Craig Mc.
It’s just so important to have all the bad guys with the right black hat on isn’t it?
Most spectacularly when Kevvie went back in time to get Dick Nixon to declare a War On Drugs, and LBJ to declare a War On Poverty.
Those who can’t remember history are doomed to live in a Groudhogs Day of Andrew Bolt commentary, eh Tony of South Yarra?
Outstanding!
Over a million Iraqi dead, 5 million displaced and an infrastructure in ruins…
But, in return, the British govt manages to (sort of) learn a valuable lesson.
That’s nice.
All governments involved in the current Afghan War could learn a valuable lesson by examinging what happened to the Brits in the 1840s and the Soviets in the 1970s. But they won’t. So they’re fighting the same old bandit war all over again. Calling it a war on terror obscures this unpalatable fact.
Paul Burns,
Think of the spin. “Bandit war” might excite the 8-14 year old boys, but they aren’t voters. The rest of the populace might be troubled by wondering who, precisely, are the “bandits”?
And then Viscount Turnbull could assail Kevin as a “Bandit Bandicoot” in Parliament.
Well, Ambi, I was thinking of the truth, or something approximating it. But, yeah, that’s a silly thing to expect of governments.
My apologies, Paul.
How easy it is to slip into the politician’s way of looking at things, rather than to aspire to know and understand and speak the truth.
How foolish I am.
Not at all I feel the same way about politicians and far too easily slip into cynicism.
The trouble is, of course, that the ham-fistedness of the US led forces in Afghanistan has helped to cause this:
And this misstates the reality of the situation:
Miliband clearly seeks to deny the fact that the Taliban, as representatives of Pashtun identity, are just the most recent manifestation of a longstanding tradition of resistance to foreign intrusion into Afghanistan. The roots of this resistance are deep and enduring, not “shallow”.
Now that the US-led coalition has decided to forego a democratising mission in favour of the “realism” of imposing a friendly, stable government in Kabul, the Coalition now has disqualified itself as carriers of Bush’s quixotic torch. The Coalition is no longerinterested in “Afghan democracy”.
The War On Terror was always a propaganda line lol. An attempt to have people believe that combat/conflict between a state-military machine and a non-state irregulars constitutes a ‘war’ (e.g. IDF vs HAMAS). Previously the Pentagon refered to such conflicts as OOTW’s – Operations Other Than War.
If it’s a war, not a OOTW (or LIC), that enables the US Commander-In-Chief to have his say on how things should be done, invoke war powers etc. Also, framing – ‘War in Iraq’ vs ‘Occupation of Iraq’ – better PR and all that, more acceptable to voters etc.
Craig Mc @ 13
The unprovoked war on Iraq had nothing to do with the so-called war on terror, other than providing a useful arena for any terrorists wanting to wage war on Americans.
One thing the Bush II regime can claim as an achievement has been the draining of all meaning from a range of words, among which are ‘freedom’ and ‘terror(ist)’. They’ve also given new and sinister meanings to other words, like ‘enhanced’ as a qualifier for ‘interrogation techniques’ but that’s another story.
‘Terror’ is what the enemy de jour does, no more and no less. Dropping and firing thousands of tonnes of quality munitions on the giant slum of Gaza with the avowed and frequently reiterated intention of terrifying the population into accepting their miserable lot isn’t ‘terror’, but any armed resistance to the siege apparently is. Back when the Spanish were doing it to Napoleon’s lads the term for today’s ‘terrorists’ used to be ‘irregulars’. During the Cold War they were ‘guerrillas’. It’s what an occupied population does to the occupiers. The ‘terrorists’ used to be those privateers like Baader Meinhof or the Japanese Red Army who were trying to give domestic politics a kick along by violent acts. The label was certainly pinned on the Jewish gangs in mandatory Palestine, but they’ve been rehabilitated as peace-loving politicians, so that’s all right. The armed opponents of foreign forces in Afghanistan are the same people, indeed often the same individuals, who were formerly dubbed Freedom Fighters (see Rambo III, a movie rarely screened on free-to-air tv these days) and whose arms and training was paid for by the US taxpayer.
It seems to me there were two objectives in naming the myriad violent actions of the US military in foreign parts the Global War on Terror. The first, and perhaps most important, was to remove any procedural fetters to executive fiat in undertaking military action by creating a fog of vagueness around what exactly this war consisted of. The second was to identify those who were to be fought as black hat wearers, evildoers who must be killed. The ease with which young American soldiers were persuaded to engage in perpetrating unspeakable acts of torment upon prisoners in their power suggests this objective was also achieved. This went well beyond the well-known images from Abu Graib – all those released from the new gulag speak of beatings and the like being administered by many personnel while prisoners were hooded and shackled.
The very success achieved in transforming the US military into a force capable of almost any act of barbarity has meant that the term must now be jettisoned. Those few acts that have been publicised have led to shame and revulsion among decent people, and the widespread suspicion that there is much worse, but that information has been successfully suppressed. This was a significant factor in Obama’s election, something of which he must be aware.
The language is in flux with the inauguration of a new US administration. I await with interest the euphemistic neologisms that will be justifying the Afghan conflict in 2012.
A typically elegantly eloquent rave from you there Hal9000.
I only have one problem with it. Your assumption of America exceptionalism. Every power that can exercise dominion over others throughout human history has carried on like that. And been equally hypocritical about it.
Of course that shouldn’t us stop from wagging a finger at the Yanks. But remember for every finger you wag, four fingers wag back. Hang on, how do you wag fingers back? OK, I meant pointing. Stop wagging that finger at me. Point taken, you wag?
At this point I should probably rejig my net de plume again to James Jesus Angleton. Or have I already?
I didn’t intend to endorse American exceptionalism, Behemoth, just to observe its many contradictions. And indeed to wag that finger!
And do you wag yr finger at me sir?
I serve as good a master as you sir.