Superb!

I admire Soros. His approach to global economic problems is worthy of great respect. His analysis of the underlying dynamics of the War on Terror is perceptive. But it misses one crucial, inescapable fact. Regardless the circumstances and dynamics that gave rise to terrorist acts, terrorist acts are real, material, effective and by now irremissable. As it were, the genie's out of the bottle. Terrorisism is now an accepted modus of warfare, terrorist acts deployments of terrorist weapons. Terrorism is globalized guerilla warfare. It works, and, depending on the "terrain" it works beautifully. It's the "anti-atomic weapon."

There is an old comedy/satirical song penned by former MIT mathemetician Tom Lehrer, a song about Werner Von Braun, the former Nazi scientist who helped develop U.S. missile technology in the 1950s-60s. One line speaks to our anxieties about terrorist acts: "When the missiles go up who cares where they come down. That's not my department," says Werner Von Braun.

First, welcome back Dean Slaughter. You were missed.

I would like to add some further reservations about the "war on terrorism" to the list offered by George Soros:

The main reason to reject the war on terrorism as a dominant themes and guiding principle of national policy is the corrosive and debilitating effect that war is having, and will continue to have, on our national culture. Daily talk about the "war on terrorism" conveys a sense of permanent emergency and crisis. This is harmful for at least these two reasons: first, because emergency conditions create the demand for, an acquiescence in, emergency powers; and second, because modern terrorism is not a crisis, but is likely to be a more or less permanent feature of modern life, and for a very long time. That is regrettable, but it means we have a choice: are we going to continue to wallow in our post-9/11 national stupor and trauma, frozen in time and haunted by the shadows of "wartime" fear and doom? Or are we going to move on and build our future, and consign terrorism to that psychic background space of modern nightmares and potential harms - like fatal traffic accidents and sudden heart failure - that, while undoubtably real, we do not allow to govern our lives.

Bush and friends prefer fear and doom, and that is why they love the War on Terror.

What Americans are mainly being distracted from by the war on terrorism is not some other horrifying overseas bogeyman, but their own domestic future. Americans need to get back to building their economic and social future, with the customary optimism, good cheer, humor and bluff courage which characterizes Americans at their best. They need to escape from the morose gloom and doom, and introverted paralyzing paranoia, into which the Bush administration has pushed them, and continues to push them because it serves their own ends. Such episodes have occurred throughout American history, and represent America at its worst.

The war theme also encourage a false promise of a decisive "victory" over terrorism. But I doubt we are ever going to see terrorism go away, although we may have more or less success in suppressing it. Twenty years from now, thirty years from now, fifty or a hundred years from now it may still be with us. Terrorism is a technique that will always be attractive to non-state actors with limited conventional power. As explosive materials and devices have become more readily available in the past few centuries, as modest technical proficiency in physical chemistry and biochemistry has spread outside a small well-governed elite and into the broader culture, and as cheap and easily obtained guns and bargain basement military equipment have been proliferated to absurd and obscene levels, the frequency and destructiveness of terrorism have increased apace.

We are not just experiencing a sudden burst of militancy. One suspects there will always be radical militant groups characterized by some combination of legitimate grievances, dour alientation, resentment, fantasy, hatred and wild-eyed utopian fervor. They will be attracted by the opportunity for a few weak people to do great damage. Preventing terrorist attacks should be regarded as one of the standard security functions of government. Americans and others should shift from thinking of fighting terrorism on the model of warfare or a response to crisis, and begin to think of it as part of good government-as-usual.

I also worry about what the war on terrorism is doing to a generation of young Americans. Rather than helping the nation heal from the 9/11 trauma, the government's tireless promulgation of the war on terrorism theme is helping to produce a generation of quasi-fanatics. Rachel Kleinman and some of the other Truman Democrats, for example, have made it clear that they now regard the War on Terrorism (or the War on Islamofascism, or the War on Islamic Totalitarianism, or one of the other affiliated "wars") as the defining theme and cause of their generation. I'm really quite concerned about the future of the country if the upcoming generation is fixated on the problem of terrorism above all other problems, and makes it their life's vocation to pursue a quixotic quest to kill the Tree of Evil by destroying and pulling out the "root causes" of terrorism. I'm also a bit concerned about the strong sense of generational difference, specialness and "calling" the war theme seems to have wrought in their psychologies.

The war metaphor also gives people a false sense of confidence that the changes we make in our legal and constitutional practices and traditions are only temporary emergency measures, rather than permanent ones. But in fact, they are not at all likely to be temporary. Once the prosecutorial, police and judicial arms of goverment succeed in accumulating new powers, it is almost impossible for people to take those powers back, There will always be some reason to be found why the "war" must be continued, or why the previous war has morphed into some new war.

The war theme also encourages obsessive navel gazing about whether we are "winning" the war on terror, and distorts our political debate in other ways as well. For example, Democrats who accept the grave allure and cosmic significance of the War on Terror are often driven to argue that the reason one should oppose the war in Iraq is because that latter war is a "distraction" from the war on terror. This is really misguided and wrongheaded. Even if there were no terrorist threat of any significance facing us, the events transpiring in Iraq would be a calamity of global import. Surely precipitating a massive collapse of stability, and a horrifying carnival of murder in the heart of the most strategic region in the world, and sending thousands of American soldiers into the meat grinder in the process, is awful enough without any need to bring in the matter of spurious "distractions" from the equally spurious war on terror.

Democrats cowed by the war on terror ballyhoo also sometimes box themselves into the awkward position of arguing, for political effect, that we are in fact "losing" the "war". Now Americans have all sorts of problems with Bush's domestic and foreign policy. But it is more than faintly absurd to take up the position that a country that has not seen a major terrorist attack since the so-called "war on terror" began is actually losing that war. The only evidence for this is that there are still terrorists out there, and there are still terorist plans to be thwarted - like the recent UK episode. But it was thwarted. And you know what? When Democrats take over, there are still going to be terrorists out there and the Democratic administration will still have to thwart planned attacks. We don't want to lay down the position now that the very existence of nasty terrorists making nasty plans that we have to thwart proves both that there is a "war on terrorism" and that we are "losing" that war. If so, Democrats will be losing the war from the day they take office.

So, rather than continuing to enable the Bush/Republican bewitchment of the public about the War on Terror, let's work to decisively break the spell, re-enter the reality-based realm, and treat terrorism as just one among several serious and persistant challenges to security and peace. And if people are looking for some cause to devote themselves to, how about the cause of building an exciting and optimistic future of prosperity, hope and progress, rather than languishing in the dismal and gloomy twilight world of the War on Terrorism.

Or perhaps, dull and several years late.

Soros is wrong if he thinks the "frame" is responsible for the manner in which Bush and Cheney conduct America's foreign policy.

The GWOT meme is for domestic political consumption, only. As such, it acts to sanitize imperialist adventures and innoculate the Administration against criticism. Whatever they called it, we'd still have gone into Iraq, still have called Sharon a "man of peace," and still have given Israel a free hand in its wars against Hizbollah, Hamas, and Islamic Jihad.

Fair points, Ellen.  Still, it's nice to see a concise summary of why and how the "war on terror" frame is damaging.  That construct might not have influenced the current administration's foreign policy, but it was definitely used to justify that foreign policy.

PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.

There's one for the tinfoil hat crowd.

because modern terrorism is not a crisis, but is likely to be a more or less permanent feature of modern life, and for a very long time. That is regrettable, but it means we have a choice: are we going to continue to wallow in our post-9/11 national stupor and trauma, frozen in time and haunted by the shadows of "wartime" fear and doom? Or are we going to move on and build our future, and consign terrorism to that psychic background space of modern nightmares and potential harms - like fatal traffic accidents and sudden heart failure - that, while undoubtably real, we do not allow to govern our lives.

There's much that's true in this post, and there's no doubt that the WAY the Bush Administration has prosecuted the "War on Terror" almost by definition discredits the whole idea. 

And yet I can't help but think that a lot of this is whistling past the graveyard.  It is probably true that if terrorism were to stay more or less at the level it exists now, especially in the US where it is essentially non-existent, then yes, it would be possible to argue that terrorism should be treated no differently than any other scourge of modern life like car accidents or heart disease.  But of course the terrorists themselves, especially those states like Iran where terrorism is state policy, aren't sitting still.  They are getting more sophisticated, seeking more and better weapons and looking to spread their evil ideology.  People on this blog tend to pooh-pooh the threat of Iranian nukes.  But even they are ten years away, how can anyone say that nukes in the hands of a government with the track record of Iran isn't something just insanely scary? If that doesn't meet the definition of an enemy that needs to be fought, then I don't know what does.

So what I fear is not the retirement of the term "war on terror" but rather the slow acceptance of terrorism as something you can't do very much about.  I'm with those who say that the struggle against Islamic extremism is nothing less than the defense of Western civilization and as such, it needs to be  be put at the center of the nation's agenda.  Does that imply an endorsement of the Bush agenda?  It shouldn't, but to too many people it does.  And that's one of the most pernicious legacies of this most pernicious of presidencies.

It's beyond tinfoil hat. he's made up a story out of thin air, based on his political beliefs and nothing else (unless he has some inside sources in British intel that he's not telling us about), and now he's going to watch the news and cherry-pick things to "prove" it. It's exactly the same thing the Bush administration tried to do with Iraq and WMD.

It's very depressing to see someone rate the comment a 4, to fall for a lefty version of a "Curveball" or a Chalabi. Makes me want to stop spending so much time at this place, thinking I might catch a bit of whatever non-reality-based disease is going around.

Even should a few of his predictions come true, it will never redeem the method. It's not just paranoid, it's a faulty way to approach discerning truth: a closed mind.

thanks for pointing out that you think the Fallows piece is important.

I would note to others that even thought the article is not available on line, there are two links to "Atlantic Unbound" pieces by him that are related and thought-provoking.

There were only two predictions in that comment.  So, if both were to pan out, it would still be a few.  The non-predictions stated were facts.  You are free to interpret them as you wish, just as others do.

Hoppy in Sacramento

It may well be that the "global war on terror" will devolve into a purely political form of the word, but those using the term treat it like a shooting war. There is heavy emphasis on military answers, on portraying the threat as an organisation that must be killed.

The rhetoric of "global war on terror" only serves to scare the populace, to maintain FUD. A sober analysis would show that less, not more, is being done under Bush than under Clinton to reduce the threat of terrorist attacks. Intelligence-gathering, cooperation, almost every effective tactic has been scorned by Bush as too wimpy.

Using the word "War" for political gain may seem macho, but in the end only invites sarcasm. The "war on drugs" was/is a joke, and the "war on poverty" also faded away in emberassment.

Brad, I do think the rising power of Iran, and the the question of best way to deal with that power, pose serious challenges for the US, Europe, Russia, China and for states in the region - including Arab states. But these challenges only seem connected in remote ways with the problem of terrorism.

We've learned of several terrorist plots and alleged plots against Western governments and their people over the past five years - in Canada, in the US, in the UK and in Spain, for example. Have any of them been traced to the government of Iran, or to groups who owe their primary loyalty to Iran? Have there been any credible reports - or even suggestions from our own Iran-obsessed government - that Iranian agents are in the US actively organizing terrorist operations?

My own view is that US relations with Iran are more a matter for coventional statecraft, and don't fall under our efforts against terrorism in any direct way. I don't want the Iranians to have nuclear weapons; just as I didn't want the Indians and the Pakistanis to have nuclear weapons, or the Israelis, or the Chinese, or the North Koreans, or the Russians. But this just seems to me to be the latest manifestation of the older problem of nuclear proliferation - a problem we have had for decades, before anyone was worried much about terrorism

But this is part of the problem with the war on terror theme. The expression "war on terrorism" is often expanded by the government and media to cover all issues of security concern related in any way to the Middle East and Muslim world. It is not conducive to clear thinking to refer to refer to such a broad assortment of different issues under a single heading - and specifically, the single heading of "terrorism".

And personally, I do not think Western civilization itself is in significant jeopardy. The sky isn't falling.

Actually, its not out there at all.

In Canada during our separatist crisis, the RCMP (Our FBI the mounties) attempted to infiltrate and discredit the separatist movement.

What was discovered when a public inquiry came about was that the RCMP made a habit of writing wildly inflammatory separatist letters to the press, to discredit real separatists. Infiltrators also colluded with and incited criminal acts. And at least one or two criminal acts, including the burning down of a barn, was actually initiated and planned by the RCMP.

This was not the separatists crying foul. This was the RCMP's dirty little secrets being dragged out into the light.

Structurally, in order to infiltrate a group, police or undercover agents often feel the need to establish their false bona fides with tough and extremist talk.

Quite often, when undercover agents are exposed, people in these groups have identified the agent as the most radical and aggressive person in the group. He's the one most inclined to incite violence, most inclined to push for the most extreme position. The need to continually 'prove' that they are real radicals can lead to advocacy of violence and actual violence.

In part, its the need to produce results. After all, every undercover assignment is a major investment of time and money. An undercover agent cannot easily be placed in a role, removed, and then re-placed in another role.

So what happens when an undercover agent is placed with what turns out to be a Koran group, or a pacifist anti-war group. Major waste of time and resources. So bureaucraticaly there is a need to radicalize. You have to justify your undercover work, even if this amounts to going out and committing minor terrorist acts, or cajoling others to plan terrorist acts.

Frankly, if it can happen in Canada, then its a snap that it is a real issue elsewhere.

In terms of Britain, we know that they experienced a similar phenomenon in dealing with the IRA.

And in the US, we have only to look at COINTELPRO or Operation Northwood (google either of them) to see how easily and brutally it can happen. In Operation Northwood elements in the Pentagon actually plotted the murder of American citizens in order to justify a military invasion of some pissy little third world country.

Often with these things, we don't find out the truth until years later.

My own view is that by this time, the historical record of these 'false flags' and 'black ops' is so extensive and so disturbing, that we simply cannot accept any current incident at face value any more.

It is not paranioa, but simple realism. Given the historical record, we simply cannot know.

And add to the list:

"Shock and Awe" is nothing more than a government sponsored military led terror tactic. It is meant to instill fear and terror.

Well, its very simple. Iran has a long track record of violence.

For instance, here's a list of the countries it has invaded!

...

...

...

Whereas the United States has in the last forty years only sent troops on missions to: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Libya, Lebanon, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Somalia, Kosovo, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the Persian Gulf.

hmmmm

Okay, bad example.

BUT Iran did fight a major war with Iraq...

...20 years ago.

...as compared to America which fought two wars with Iraq, maintained sanctions for 12 years, undertook numerous military bombing operations like 'Desert Fox' and currently occupies the place to this very day.

hmmm

Okay, another bad example.

BUT Iran sponsors terrorist organizations, like Al Quaeda...

... well, not like Al Quaeda, which it hates.

... But definitely it sponsors Hezbollah.

On the other hand, the United States has sponsored or supported terrorist organizations or operations in or against Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Venezuala among others.

Hmmmm

That's not a good example either.

Okay, how about this:

Iran is a country of people who wear funny turbans and robes, who go around shouting Allah Akbar which probably doesn't mean any good, and who are not sufficiently devoted to kissing America's ass.

I think that justifies a good nukin' right there.

Meanwhile, over in that strange country called reality....

And yet I can't help but think that a lot of this is whistling past the graveyard. It is probably true that if terrorism were to stay more or less at the level it exists now, especially in the US where it is essentially non-existent, then yes, it would be possible to argue that terrorism should be treated no differently than any other scourge of modern life like car accidents or heart disease. But of course the terrorists themselves, especially those states like Iran where terrorism is state policy, aren't sitting still. They are getting more sophisticated, seeking more and better weapons and looking to spread their evil ideology. People on this blog tend to pooh-pooh the threat of Iranian nukes. But even they are ten years away, how can anyone say that nukes in the hands of a government with the track record of Iran isn't something just insanely scary? If that doesn't meet the definition of an enemy that needs to be fought, then I don't know what does.

I'm sort of with you on this, but my concern is that the Administration isn't with you. My concern is that many in this Administration would find the continued existence of a non-nuclear and even non-Hezbollah-supporting Iran unacceptable if its under the current regime. Whether the real goal is an idealistic Middle East democracy project or a cynical grab for oil, the nuclear issue is perhaps just a tool for Bush, and therefore Bush does nothing to signal to Iran that giving up nukes would allow them to maintain control of their country.

In other words, the Bush Administration makes Iran MORE likely to acquire nukes, so that it might be more like North Korea than Iraq.

I'd agree that with increasing technology terrorism is going to be a bigger and bigger deal in the future. But that's exactly why we need to prioritize our anti-terrorism--we need to do more to fight the biggest threat, nuclear proliferation, and perhaps live with the smaller, more manageable threats. And above all we need to realize that war produces chaos and disorder and terrorists love chaos and disorder. We should threaten war with Iran, but we must consider that Mutually Assured Detriment--if we can keep Iran as a non-nuclear dictatorship, that would be much safer for us (as well as Iranians and the entire planet) than turning it into Iraq-style anarchy.

Iran may need to be fought in the future, but it sure as hell doesn't need to be fought TODAY, and nothing good will come of a war with Iran started by the guys who gave us the war in Iraq.

I also worry about what the war on terrorism is doing to a generation of young Americans. Rather than helping the nation heal from the 9/11 trauma, the government's tireless promulgation of the war on terrorism theme is helping to produce a generation of quasi-fanatics. Rachel Kleinman and some of the other Truman Democrats, for example, have made it clear that they now regard the War on Terrorism (or the War on Islamofascism, or the War on Islamic Totalitarianism, or one of the other affiliated "wars") as the defining theme and cause of their generation. I'm really quite concerned about the future of the country if the upcoming generation is fixated on the problem of terrorism above all other problems, and makes it their life's vocation to pursue a quixotic quest to kill the Tree of Evil by destroying and pulling out the "root causes" of terrorism. I'm also a bit concerned about the strong sense of generational difference, specialness and "calling" the war theme seems to have wrought in their psychologies.

I've got to seriously disagree with you here. Terrorism is the key issue of our time--and this will be even more true in future generations. As more and more technology unleashes greater and greater power, the effort to keep small dissatisfied groups of individuals from killing mass numbers of people will become more and more important. Yes, we must always live with terrorism--but reducing (or at least not increasing) the number of people with both desire and means to kill a mass of their fellow human beings is an absolute requirement of human society in the future. If the younger generation happens to see that more clearly than their elders, than they're just ahead of the curve--it will become even more obvious to generations yet born, with destructive technologies yet undreamt.

That said, I think stopping terrorism is a matter of restraint, patience, cooperation, economics, and culture rather than causing destruction and chaos--but terrorism is still of primary importance.