The War In Error | why * is conceptually WRONG

[nostamj]

The War In Error, or, Chemotherapy v. Surgery

One of my parodies for "The Question W Revue," BUSHSPEAK (based on Cole Porter's "Brush Up Your Shakespeare"), contains this couplet:

HE CAN'T WIN A WAR AGAINST TERRA
'CAUSE CONCEPTUALLY HE'S IN ERRA.

Terror is a tactic. A 'behavior' if you will. To suggest that it can be defeated by killing or capturing those who practice the tactic (or behavior) is ludicrous.

Killing terrorists eliminates individual terrorists but, if anything, promotes more terrorist behavior. Witness the folly of conflating the Iraq Invasion with a 'war on terror.' By any objective measure, we have more terrorist behavior and more terrorists than before the invasion.

Since when is aggressive, and, grimly successful, provocation deemed a success? Only in the 'through the looking glass' world view of the bushies. The increasing incidents of terrorist 'tactics' in a society previously free of such activity is telling. Yes, Saddam was a bad bad man. But, under his regime, daily acts of fundamentalist Islamic terrorism were not a fact of life. Now, it is.

The Bush administration and it's supporters/enablers make no attempt to distinguish the daily carnage between 'terrorists' and 'insurgents.' And, at a certain level–provocation–there is little difference. Both the terrorist insurgency and the anti-occupation insurgency were provoked by the same mis-guided policy.

Viewed from a British perspective, there is little question that the 'insurgency' that was the American Revolution would have been perceived as 'terrorism' through the contemporary filter of a Bush reign from Buckingham palace.

Bush wants to defeat 'terror' by killing 'terrorists.'

But, "Conceptually, he's in ERRA."

He would be as successful in waging a "War On Depression" by killing the depressed. He might claim that three-quarters of the depressed have been caught or KILLED. But, would there really be less depression in the world? Of course not.

He can't win this "war" because it is conceptually false.

To get back to my sub-title, excising individual tumors will not cure the larger threat of cancer to humanity.

Developing strategies to reduce or eliminate tumors, could.

The Bush administration's fundamental dishonesty–or disconnect–about the reality of confronting terrorism dooms it to failure–and exposes all of us to the consequences of that failure. Killing individual terrorists–if indeed they have, as the empty meme of 'two-thirds' and 'three-fourths' have proved–is meaningless and misleading. It has made things worse, not better.

When the WTC was first attacked, those terrorists were caught, tried and convicted. After the second attack (not to mention the anthrax terrorism directed at democrats and the 'liberal' media) there has been no terrorist caught, tried, or convicted. Just a flurry of bombs that have killed a grossly disproportionate number of innocents in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

No one has been brought to justice for 9/11. No terrorists, and certainly no administration officials responsible for our national security that day.

And terrorist activity has been steadily on the rise–even if there has been no new attack on American soil. Claiming that America is 'safer' while the world know they are less safe is typical of the hubris of the Bush team. And, I fear, we cannot expect to remain safe. Eight years separated the WTC attacks. Bush and his team utterly failed in 2001.

Is there any reason to assume they won't fail again?

Kerry's rhetoric on this topic, regrettably, has echoed too much of the 'kill them' agenda of the bushies. But, I believe this to be unfortunate political expediency rather than core believe about addressing the true nature of the threat. He can't (politically) afford to be perceived as weak but, given the chance, can be stronger in addressing the threat.

After 3000 deaths on 9/11, 1100 (and counting) US deaths in Iraq and the uncounted 10s of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani innocents slaughtered in Bush's War without a single documented arrest or killing of anyone associated with those 9/11 deaths...

How any American can believe that we will be 'safer' with four more years of this policy drives me utterly mad.

A Tale Of Two Speeches

[nostamj]

1. ouch.

all crickets, all the time.

[nostamj]

2. maybe in the daylight? n/t

[Jacobin]

3. We're boycotting until we get our 'Toon Fix!!!!!

Just kidding.

:-) (sorta!)

However, your post is the crux of the difference between The Smirk and Kerry and you are absolutely correct. The only thing I would comment on is that this 'war on terra' crap is just an excuse to steal natural resources.

Viewed from a coldly geo-political perspective, I would suggest that it is much cheaper to buy oil from secular dictators of oil rich countries than it is to try to conquer and occupy them. But, that's just me.

[nostamj]

4. i'll probably do TOONs tomorrow....

sorry to leave my millions of fans in withdrawal... ;-)

agree with your point re: resources

it certainly isn't about capturing terrorists or reducing the threat. who profits from the WoT? duh!

[Tansy_Gold]

5. To go with your analogy,

it seems more as if the boosh policy is to remove breasts in order to prevent prostate cancer. Or something like that.

The meme seems to have taken hold, however: If we kill them over there, they won't kill us over here. The basic premise of intense American individuality holds true. And because of that, it's impossible for many people, especially those on the right, to grasp the concept of "the spread of terrorism."

I could go on for hours, because another concept most Americans, and especially those on the right, can't get their heads around is that everything has a cause and everything is an effect, and it's all interconnected. Crime goes up when unemployment goes up, and unemployment goes up when outsourcing goes up, and outsourcing goes up when corporate heads get paid in stock options, so essentially stock options cause crime. That kind of "logic" --- that that specific example, but that type of rationale -- is instantly dismissed because there's no direct link between stock options and crime, but as James Burke used to tell us, everything's connected.

the compartmentalization of American life has contributed to the almost total lack of critical thinking skills. Jon Stewart's interview with Ed Koch the other night was imho a perfect illustration: Koch agrees with nothing in boosh's domestic policy but is supporting him because he believes boosh will protect him from another terrorist attack. There's no connect between the idea that boosh will protect him from a terrorist attack and the concept of a boosh America that will be just like the terrorists' dream.

Great post, sir, great post. :thumbsup:


Tansy Gold

[nostamj]

6. great post for you too!

I would say that the beast/prostrate example applies better to Iraq/Afghanistan but the blindered vision of * and his followers couldn't be more correct.

of course the Iraq Invasion has nothing to do with a WoT, except to make it more difficult which Kerry has been hitting HARD in his speeches.

thanks for the :thumbsup: !

[Tansy_Gold]

7. oh, btw, on the pic of boosh & Barney

I didn't notice your caption the first couple of times I saw the pic. The expression on boosh's face to me looked like he was taking a leak and just couldn't understand how tiny his, er, instrument was!

"Where'd it go? I had it here last time, didn't I? Hey, Laura, can you come he'p me fer a sec?"

[nostamj]

8. others have thought he's looking at ann coulter

or Leslie Blitzer
or Candy Crowley
or Bill Hummer
or........................................

[nostamj]

9. .