I'm sure the Bush Administration will find a way to smear him.

The global networked enemy that we're fighting is doing, very, very, very well in the information ops area and portraying our actions as anti-Islamic, anti-Islam, anti-Muslim. And we have to find some way to counter that." U.S. Central Command has recently started "engaging very heavily with Al Jazeera with interviews and speakers and low and behold Al Jazeera's coverage has considerably changed," he added. "We need to do more of that."

Indeed.

I try to call the current war usually "the struggle against Islamist (not Islamic, key distinction) extremism." I seriously have been making an effort to do this in my writing, because of exactly the reasons this guy outlines. A war against terrorism is unwinnable. You can't fight a war against a tactic. Clearly, we're not also at war with the IRA, ETA, FARC, et al.. We're at a war with a specific ideology that uses terrorism as its primary modus operandi. And I do think this is more than a semantic point.

Ben P

Not to make light of a serious topic, but I couldn't resist remembering an old Jackie Vernon joke:

"When President Johnson declared war on poverty, I went out and threw a hand grenade at a beggar." 

"whether any have ever evolved something like democracy directly out of the materials of tribal structures."

What do you mean by this exactly? I'm unclear on the meaning of "evolving" "directly". And of "tribal". There are certainly plenty of tribal societies that are now democracies. They're mainly young democracies, as is to be expected, since tribalism is a sign that a country isn't terribly economically or politically developed. India is to a large extent tribal; I'm unclear on how you draw the distinction between tribes and castes, but large segments of the populace would meet anyone's definition of "tribe". South Africa is a democracy. Nigeria is (fingers crossed) a democracy. Ghana and Mali and Benin and Kenya are democracies. I'm unsure why you don't consider Indonesia "tribal". Ever seen a Dayak? Thailand has substantial ethnic minorities that live contiguously; some are, again, tribes by anyone's definition. In fact I can't understand why you would claim (implicitly) that Iraq is more tribal than Indonesia.

As for "evolving", are you looking for a country where democracy materialized gradually and without outside interference? Because there aren't many of those in continental Europe, as far as I know. Why would you expect third-world countries today to be any different?

 I think what General Gregson is saying is what a lot of people have been pointing out and that is the tactics now employed are not working, will not work and needs to be changed. Sadly though it matters not what the good General thinks even though I agree with him. For one thing Bush is probably not even considering changing tactics and for another I don’t think “winning” is something we can hope for and I am not at all sure what winning would actually mean other than bringing the violence to a halt, as for a democracy in Iraq I suppose it is possible but the best possible solution would be to let the UN take over rebuilding Iraq. I think that the Europeans probably realize it would be in everyone’s interest to bring the violence in Iraq to some kind of manageable level. Recently Putin, in a speech, said that it was time for Europe to put aside differences with the United States and help end the violence in Iraq. If that help is forthcoming I don’t know but I think Putin is correct.

 The anthropological definition of ‘war’ is an all out effort by one country to defeat another country using all available resources to achieve this goal. I think the key words are ‘all available resources.’ We have not been using all available resources by any stretch of the imagination.

 I think this is just another example of the confusion caused by the initial reasoning to invade Iraq by Bush which was motivated by political gain. Once you tell one whopper you have to keep making up whoppers to cover the original whopper. Pretty soon you have told so many whoppers you cannot keep track of them, now you are in trouble, right Bush? So now the whopper is, since we are not winning, we are winning at least according to our forthright prez.

 As long as we stay in Iraq so will the insurgents, our very presence attracts them. The General is right when he says this is not a war against terrorists, it is the war that produces them.

Radical persons who happen to be of the Islamic faith have played this administration like a fiddle. I think they take great pride in the fact that they have so easily demonstrated how little effort the west has made in understanding Islam, the Arab world and the historical circumstances of both.

I've thought for a long time that a lot of the difficulties in the broad sense of the region can be traced back to post WWII and the fact that the creation of the state of Israel and dropping it smack in the middle of the Arab world wasn't such a hot idea. The flip side of that is tens of millions of people of Islamic faith lived in states that ended up under the Soviet umbrella and didn't fare too well in that situation. So we have Jews getting a homeland and freedom and people of Islam getting religious persecution of sorts.

And thus was sown the seed for growing hatred of the west. It is now harvest time. Oddly enough, we continue to act in ways that nurture more of the same. And the Muslim on Muslim violence identifies the sectarian conflict between those who happened to have prospered and those who haven't. Contrast the wealth and in your face luxury of the Saudi Royal family against the majority of Muslims and we begin to understand the depth of the conflict.

In the U.S. we need to pay heed to this circumstance. The future could bring us to similar conflict because of the economic gap between classes that is ever widening and is promoted by those of wealth and power.
 
Don't think it can't happen. The foundation for it is already in place. With every mega merger that occurs we move ever closer to serious conflict. Consider that major financial institutions control the deposits of the millions of account holders all across the land. Consider further that some of the proceeds of those deposits has been used to create PACs that supported and strongly influenced legislation that has served to disadvantage the very account holders in those institutions. The irony of that circumstance should not be lost on individuals on the wrong end of that financial relationship. The root cause is different certainly, but the net result is a similarly huge economic gap between population segments.

Inequities in freedom, representation and economic circumstance can lead to similar undesirable results. Just as these conditions are present in many places across the globe, and are the root causes for the present conflict, we need to understand that we must avoid finding ourselves moving in a similar direction. That we are doing so at present is an undeniable fact.



thepeoplechoose

Talk to a conservative and tell him that a war on "terrorism" is about as meaningful as a war on "poverty." 

(Talk to a misguided liberal who supports a so-called "war on terrorism" as a legitimate concept and you tell him it makes as much sense as a war on drugs.)

There are two reasons why the distinction is important. The first is that terrorism as a weapon and not an enemy cannot be defeated. Thus we would be in a war without end. The consequence for American civil liberties and our relations with other nations is very dire. Secondly, it misplaces who we are to fight and how to fight them.

The potential for a local insurgency in the US does exist,  however, such actions are seldom if ever rational and the masses have been sufficiently programmed, I think, to insure that any eruptions will be more like a pogrom against the defined enemies at home than any revolutionary endeavour.

I've always felt that Democrats and others carping about the use of the phrase "War on Terror" was misguided, politically stupid and counterproductive. 

In the first place, in a political context, the phrase "War on ....." has a highly elastic meaning.  We've had the War on Poverty and the War on Drugs in addition to the Cold War and our various hot wars.  So the idea that the phrase "War on Terror" has any specific meaning that should be opposed is wrong.

Second, focusing on what the Adminstration calls its strategy distracts from the substance of what the strategy is and how effective it is.  Rather than debating about whether we are in a properly defined "war" or not, Democrats should be criticizing the specific decisions that are being made and the competence with which those decisions are being carried out.  To be sure, they are doing that as well, but the focus on semantics is a distraction.

Most important, Democrats should be stying to build a consensus around an alternative vision of how to deal with the conflict we are in now, whatever it is called.  It's a given that Democrats would not have invaded Iraq, but the idea that we are going to regain power by criticizing the decision to go to war has been disproven over and over again.  How many more elections must Democrats lose before they understand this?

Thirdly, focusing on the label "War on Terror" is politically tone deaf.  Do Democrats really want to be seen to be opposing a "War on Terrorism?  Or to put it another way, if you are the average voter, with a memory of 9/11 and the other terrorist outrages around the world still fresh, and one party says it's going to war on terrorism and the other party quibbles that this doesn't meet the strict definition of a war, which party are you likely to think is more serious about questions of national security?  It's not a question of who has the better or more effective policy.  It's a question of how the issue is framed.  If we're debating semantics, we've already lost the framing battle.  I though this was something Democrats were beginning to understand.

God bless Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson.  Here's what he said that jumped out at me, "Words have meaning.  And these words our[sic] leading us down to the wrong concept."

Since the year 2000, that statement has not been true in the White House, in certain Republican circles, and in certain press outlets.  I fear for Wallace Gregson, because the Bush crew does not brook this kind of criticism. 

Putin should talk. Will he be requesting help to "end the violence" and human rights abuses in Chechnya.

I've always felt that Democrats and others carping about the use of the phrase "War on Terror" was misguided, politically stupid and counterproductive.

At the risk of being misguided, politically stupid and counterproductive, here's some further carping. 

On the one hand, you say words have a "highly elastic meaning," but then you say we shouldn't challenge the words the Republicans choose.  That would seem to suggest the words do have meaning.  If that's so, then we agree. 

So long as the rhetoric fits inside the frame, I also agree that quibbling over naming rights is meaningless.  Once the practice is far out of frame as to be off the wall, the rhetoric matters because it is the other side's rhetoric that you use to take them down with.  Every lawyer who's ever cross-examiend a witness knows that people pay attention once you begin to hang someone with their own words.  Same is true here.

When they talk about the "Clean Skies Initiative" or the "Healthy Forest Initiative," they harm themselves because no one, aside from those who buy their Kool-Aid at the price club store, believes them.  We should talk about that.

Second, focusing on what the Adminstration calls its strategy distracts from the substance of what the strategy is and how effective it is. Rather than debating about whether we are in a properly defined "war" or not, Democrats should be criticizing the specific decisions that are being made and the competence with which those decisions are being carried out.

We agree again on form v. function. But when there's a war on, how much flexibility do you get?  To criticize a wartime president on the war, you either have to say "We're losing and should change," or "There's no war."  We did neither last year.  How'd it go?

If all we do is talk phrasing, yes, we lose.  That's the limit of framing and language.  But we have to talk about it, particuarly when the frame is the substance, as I believe it is here. 

Do Democrats really want to be seen to be opposing a "War on Terrorism? ....  It's not a question of who has the better or more effective policy. It's a question of how the issue is framed. 

This, in my view, amounts to surrender.  And that would be misguided, politically stupid and counterproductive.

Ben,

I believe in using, as closely as possible, the terms with which people use to describe themselves. Admittedly, this is not always possible with Islamists. Nonetheless, do you think that the two political Islamists featured in the NYT piece linked below, Dr. Imram Waheed and Farouq Khan, would describe themselves as extremists?

NY Times: “Anger Burns on the Fringe of Britain’s Muslims,” by Hassan M. Fattah, July 16, 2005.

Also, note the Times’ curious usage of the useless term “conservative” (which is just as irrelevant to US politics as it is to global political Islam).

Wouldn't it be nice if Congress took its constitutional responsibility seriously and actually declared wars. Then there wouldn't be any confusion about when we actually are at war.

This is an important debate and here's why:

We are not in a literal war on terrorism.  We are at war with terrorists.  But I argue this distinction isn't that important in a political context. 

For me, the distinction is everything.  The Republicans says we are in a war on/with terror(ism).  So they send 160,000+ troops to where they say "terror" is.  This is wholly circular : we send 140,000 troops  into a nation and upset the social order, even a lousy social order, and we're going to draw  people who don't like us and will try to kill us.  In that hothouse, we can fight "terror" all the livelongday.

But we're not even "at war with terrorists."  We don't have much to say about terrorist groups in much of the earth?  The Tamil Tigers?  Who cares.  Organized crime running Russia?  Not so much.  The terrorizing governments of Syria, North Korea,  Zimbabwe?  If George Bush says there's terror there, apparently it does.

No, we're at war with the guys who attacked our shores.  We're at war with al Qaeda.  A "war on al Qaeda" is very different.  And the public is smart enough to get this.  Our fighting in Afghanistan has been popular from the beginning and remains so, despite setbacks and the continued flight of one OBL.  Americans understand why we went, and why we're there.  

But on the other hand, Democrats should not be seen to be quibbling with a "War on Terrorism" because the non-partisan moderates that we need to build a majority are looking for seriousness on national security and worrying about labels when lives are at stake is not a mark of seriousness.

Again, we agree that people want to see seriousness.  But if deploying 140,000 troops in Iraq is the mark of that seriousness, we have nothing to debate with the Republicans, which is bad for Democrats. 

A "war on terror" gives an out for massive military deployments because that's what people think wars are about.   But this current struggle isn't about brigades or B-52s.  It's about intelligence, multi-lateral relationships, banking, cybersecurity, port security, public transit & utility security, i.e., all the things at home we should be doing but aren't because "wars" involve projection of military might.

In sum, I'd suggest we focus on public attitudes re: Iraq v. Afgahnistan.  Because that's how we show seriousness and wisdom that gives us a fighting chance.

You'll end up with a overwhelming majority on the other side, unfortunately.

The trajectory in Iraq tends to suggest this.

Agathena, Putin is no angel but when you consider Gitmo and the tortures in Iraq we are in no position to say much about human rights. We are in a very bad spot in Iraq and help from Putin and the rest of Europe would be most welcome. This is not a time for pointing fingers, Bush’s policies have effectively estranged our former allies just when we need their help the most. Right after 9/11 we had the good will and backing of our allies, no longer is this so.

There are lots of fairly classic characteristics of Tribal Societies, and of course there are major differences among them, but essentially it comes down to the individual having personal and political identity through the Tribe, and having economic and social status as a result of strenth of tribal identity.  In a tribal siciety (or a culture dominated by it) the margins are kept pretty clean -- who is a member, and who is an outsider is fairly easy to determine. 

Many of the developing countries you mention are indeed peopled by folk with tribal identity, but they are also evolving a detribilized urban class made up of young men who have no strong link to tribe.  It is that process that I see as evolution away from fairly strict tribalism.  I would suggest that when you find people making businesses more in terms of economic advantage, forming political organizations across tribe and around economic and social interests -- then you have the essence of the detribalized process. 

Tribal societies act as a unit based on who was born into them, and the general status and welfare of members is based on the success of the Tribal leaders acting in the name of all.  In a detribalized situation, membership in groups that act as one is based on persuasion, not on the chance of birth. 

Breaking down a tribal culture involves eventually dismissing the traditional leaders -- or finding a way to make them beloved museum pieces.  Most traditional tribal power centers understand the threat to their power of detribalization, and will fight like hell to preserve it. 

These are just a few formal points.