Counterpoint: The Terrorism Problem and Perpetual War as an Undesirable Notion
Published by BG on Friday, May 11, 2007 at 10:14 AM.In the discussion as to whether terrorism is a law enforcement problem or not, I think there's a gap in the arguments being made. Let's start with this one:
However, the idea that the frontline in the War on Terror are the guys from Reno 911 is an idea with a foundation of naivety not seen since some argued Hitler only wanted Poland. It's the kind of naivety that already cost us 3000 American lives on September 11th.
I will concede that there are bad people in the world who are actively plotting to do bad things to Americans. However, these bad people are an amorphous, purposefully disconnected bunch. They live in caves in Afghanistan, palaces in Riyadh, dormitories in Berlin, and probably apartment buildings in Manhattan. As such, there is no discernable "frontline" on which to stake out a battle. While there is certainly a poisonous and irrational ideology these people possess, they do not have the physical might to commit large-scale genocides or geographic occupations as Hitler did. Plus, if you wanted to stop Hitler, you had to get through a uniformed and disciplined army, equipped with tanks and airplanes to do so.
How do you defeat a nation that is willing to use its army to subordinate the freedoms of neighboring nations? War.
How do you defeat an amorphous, disparate and disconnected ideological group who blend in with the average citizenry of any and every location they inhabit, and have as a primary strategy a desire to commit acts of violence - not against your armies, as in traditional warfare - against an innocent and unsuspecting population?
Look, we've seen how effective our military can be in just and righteous warfare, so I understand where the instinct to solve this problem with military solutions comes from. But our knee-jerk reaction to find someone with whom to pick a fight so we can use our cruise missles reminds me of an old saying... If the only tool in your box is a hammer, just about everything's going to start to look like a nail to you. Getting back to Luckbox's argument:
How can I say that, you ask? It's simple. From the day these terrorists first attacked us in 1993, to the day President Bush invaded Afghanistan, the United States treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. We waited until we were attacked and then sought out the men responsible so they could be punished.
I am entirely in agreement that 9/11 was a turning point for our philosophies on security. I am also in agreement that the overt support of the Taliban regime to, specifically, the organization responsible for 9/11 was worth fighting them for - militarily. Let's agree that if a state is unwilling to agree to reasonable demands to cease supporting rogue groups like al Qaeda, that it makes perfect sense to ask them to meet our troops on the battlefield to perhaps discuss alternate means of compliance.
Luckbox chronicles the terrorist attacks against America from 1993-2001, then writes:
For almost a decade, our government treated terrorism like a law enforcement problem. Plenty of people were indicted. Some were even actually captured and thrown into jail. And yet the attacks continued and continued, growing in magnitude. When 3000 people were killed, our President finally learned that waiting for the next attack and trying to arrest the perpetrators was only asking for more death and destruction.
There is a time and a place for investigations and intelligence. A lucky break helped a video clerk tip off the FBI. Law enforcement worked that time. And every now and then, it will work. But to pretend as though we're not at war... But as long as we track them down later and arrest them, everything's okay, right?
Let me make one thing clear before I jump back into my argument. This is not a war. This is an ideological battle of wills against an enemy who is neither a state nor a state-sponsored group. I do not believe "terrorism" is something against which you can declare war, nor do I believe al Qaeda is a group against which you can declare war.
A declaration of war is a state versus a state.
An authorization to use military force is permission granted by the Congress for the mobilization of our military for an explicit cause.
Do you see the difference?
So to your point, let's draw a distinction between what "law enforcement problem" means and how it's being framed. "Law enforcement" is not a wholly reactionary technique, and can be utilized as a methodology for proactively short-circuiting problems before they happen.
In other words, we don't have to see a plane hit a tower in order to react. Intent to commit a heinous act is as criminally negligent as actually committing said act. A man walks into a gun store, tells the clerk he wants a handgun so he can go shoot his neighbor three times in the head. The act hasn't been committed, but the intent is there and prosecutable.
So if we can establish that we're not talking about "law enforcement" as a wholly post-attack methodology, let me ask you a question... How, exactly, does an act of war (i.e., military force enacting proactive solutions) serve as a superior means to law enforcement (i.e., the gathering of intelligence by CIA/FBI) of accomplishing the following tasks:
1) Figuring out who these people are
2) Figuring out where these people are
3) Figuring out what their intentions are
4) Figuring out who's equipping/supporting/enabling these people
5) Separating them from the general population, so as to minimize or eliminate collateral damage
6) Short-circuiting acts of terror before they happen
7) Eliminating the ability of these people to continue to organize, recruit or plan for current or future attacks (including ending them, if necessary)
Obviously, a scenario where good intelligence tells us a meeting is taking place in a Gaza Strip basement can be handled by sending a team of Navy Seals in to, uh, clear the building. But that's still a law enforcement approach to solving the problem. It's not a war approach.
Here's my problem. War is an evocative framework, one which I might not be arguing against using, if not for two little things.
One, what we are effectively "fighting" is a technique wrapped in an ideology, and neither this ideology nor the technique for its application are going to go away - likely ever. Honestly, is there any scenario short of a very literal and very scary genocidal or nuclear solution that could actually solve the problem of terror for the sake of Islamic extremism?
So, under the supposition that if this is a war, this war is never, ever going to be over, my second argument against accepting war as a solution is this:
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Perpetual war versus vigilant use of intelligence and targeted enforcement. To me, it's an easy choice to make, especially as we've seen the groundwork laid by this administration:
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | A state of emergency
Well, that's just one guy's opinion, and this isn't a big story, right? Tell that to Charlie Savage, who won a Pulitzer for his work investigating the President's signing statements. Here's a clip from an interview of his:
Glenn Greenwald - Salon
This theory was adopted by the Bush administration, after reading the position papers of John Yoo, who in 2001 was in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel:
Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings On Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping
Interview with John Yoo, author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11
Well, we were always at war with Eurasia. Looks like we always will be too, if that "optimal level of war" is no longer "zero."
I believe that persistent warmongering by this administration has been purposeful, but less for the "noble" causes of nation building and the fostering of democracy than for engaging in a perpetual war to allow the expansion of powers of the executive branch to grow. I think this administration has been purposefully dishonest with America, and the repercussions of this unprecedented assertion of the unitary executive theory are already being felt. We live in a world where the administration can whisk you off the street and throw you in a prison without charges, can torture you if they claim you're an enemy combatant, can open your mail or eavesdrop on your phone calls without legislatively mandated oversight, and can acquire databases full of call logs or web activity from telecom companies just by issuing a non-warrant approved NSL.
They have gotten away with the above, as well as other reckless acts, through war posturing and fear mongering, and I refuse to accept the framework of perpetual war as a means of enabling governmental lawlessness.
I agree that terrorist acts should be pre-empted, but I fail to see how the framework of war is a healthy one - both for securing our elusive ideals of safety, and for the future of democracy in this country.
However, the idea that the frontline in the War on Terror are the guys from Reno 911 is an idea with a foundation of naivety not seen since some argued Hitler only wanted Poland. It's the kind of naivety that already cost us 3000 American lives on September 11th.
I will concede that there are bad people in the world who are actively plotting to do bad things to Americans. However, these bad people are an amorphous, purposefully disconnected bunch. They live in caves in Afghanistan, palaces in Riyadh, dormitories in Berlin, and probably apartment buildings in Manhattan. As such, there is no discernable "frontline" on which to stake out a battle. While there is certainly a poisonous and irrational ideology these people possess, they do not have the physical might to commit large-scale genocides or geographic occupations as Hitler did. Plus, if you wanted to stop Hitler, you had to get through a uniformed and disciplined army, equipped with tanks and airplanes to do so.
How do you defeat a nation that is willing to use its army to subordinate the freedoms of neighboring nations? War.
How do you defeat an amorphous, disparate and disconnected ideological group who blend in with the average citizenry of any and every location they inhabit, and have as a primary strategy a desire to commit acts of violence - not against your armies, as in traditional warfare - against an innocent and unsuspecting population?
Look, we've seen how effective our military can be in just and righteous warfare, so I understand where the instinct to solve this problem with military solutions comes from. But our knee-jerk reaction to find someone with whom to pick a fight so we can use our cruise missles reminds me of an old saying... If the only tool in your box is a hammer, just about everything's going to start to look like a nail to you. Getting back to Luckbox's argument:
How can I say that, you ask? It's simple. From the day these terrorists first attacked us in 1993, to the day President Bush invaded Afghanistan, the United States treated terrorism as a law enforcement problem. We waited until we were attacked and then sought out the men responsible so they could be punished.
I am entirely in agreement that 9/11 was a turning point for our philosophies on security. I am also in agreement that the overt support of the Taliban regime to, specifically, the organization responsible for 9/11 was worth fighting them for - militarily. Let's agree that if a state is unwilling to agree to reasonable demands to cease supporting rogue groups like al Qaeda, that it makes perfect sense to ask them to meet our troops on the battlefield to perhaps discuss alternate means of compliance.
Luckbox chronicles the terrorist attacks against America from 1993-2001, then writes:
For almost a decade, our government treated terrorism like a law enforcement problem. Plenty of people were indicted. Some were even actually captured and thrown into jail. And yet the attacks continued and continued, growing in magnitude. When 3000 people were killed, our President finally learned that waiting for the next attack and trying to arrest the perpetrators was only asking for more death and destruction.
There is a time and a place for investigations and intelligence. A lucky break helped a video clerk tip off the FBI. Law enforcement worked that time. And every now and then, it will work. But to pretend as though we're not at war... But as long as we track them down later and arrest them, everything's okay, right?
Let me make one thing clear before I jump back into my argument. This is not a war. This is an ideological battle of wills against an enemy who is neither a state nor a state-sponsored group. I do not believe "terrorism" is something against which you can declare war, nor do I believe al Qaeda is a group against which you can declare war.
A declaration of war is a state versus a state.
An authorization to use military force is permission granted by the Congress for the mobilization of our military for an explicit cause.
Do you see the difference?
So to your point, let's draw a distinction between what "law enforcement problem" means and how it's being framed. "Law enforcement" is not a wholly reactionary technique, and can be utilized as a methodology for proactively short-circuiting problems before they happen.
In other words, we don't have to see a plane hit a tower in order to react. Intent to commit a heinous act is as criminally negligent as actually committing said act. A man walks into a gun store, tells the clerk he wants a handgun so he can go shoot his neighbor three times in the head. The act hasn't been committed, but the intent is there and prosecutable.
So if we can establish that we're not talking about "law enforcement" as a wholly post-attack methodology, let me ask you a question... How, exactly, does an act of war (i.e., military force enacting proactive solutions) serve as a superior means to law enforcement (i.e., the gathering of intelligence by CIA/FBI) of accomplishing the following tasks:
1) Figuring out who these people are
2) Figuring out where these people are
3) Figuring out what their intentions are
4) Figuring out who's equipping/supporting/enabling these people
5) Separating them from the general population, so as to minimize or eliminate collateral damage
6) Short-circuiting acts of terror before they happen
7) Eliminating the ability of these people to continue to organize, recruit or plan for current or future attacks (including ending them, if necessary)
Obviously, a scenario where good intelligence tells us a meeting is taking place in a Gaza Strip basement can be handled by sending a team of Navy Seals in to, uh, clear the building. But that's still a law enforcement approach to solving the problem. It's not a war approach.
Here's my problem. War is an evocative framework, one which I might not be arguing against using, if not for two little things.
One, what we are effectively "fighting" is a technique wrapped in an ideology, and neither this ideology nor the technique for its application are going to go away - likely ever. Honestly, is there any scenario short of a very literal and very scary genocidal or nuclear solution that could actually solve the problem of terror for the sake of Islamic extremism?
So, under the supposition that if this is a war, this war is never, ever going to be over, my second argument against accepting war as a solution is this:
"We've always been at war with Eastasia."
Perpetual war versus vigilant use of intelligence and targeted enforcement. To me, it's an easy choice to make, especially as we've seen the groundwork laid by this administration:
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | A state of emergency
Within the Bush administration something that senior officials call the "war paradigm" is the central organising principle. They do not use the phrase publicly, but they bend policy to serve it. After September 11 the war paradigm was instantly adopted. George Bush, who proclaimed "I'm a war president", assumed the paradigm as his natural state and right. According to its imperatives, the president in his wartime capacity as commander in chief makes and enforces laws as he sees fit, overriding the constitutional system of checks and balances. Some of the paradigm's expressions include Bush's fiats on the treatment of detainees, domestic surveillance and international law, and his more than 750 "signing statements" - interpretations of laws that he claims he can implement as he chooses.
Well, that's just one guy's opinion, and this isn't a big story, right? Tell that to Charlie Savage, who won a Pulitzer for his work investigating the President's signing statements. Here's a clip from an interview of his:
Glenn Greenwald - Salon
(Savage speaking): In his signing statements, Bush was asserting that the president, as commander-in-chief and head of the "unitary" executive branch, has the power to set aside laws in which Congress has sought to restrict his power or to regulate the federal government. This view seemed to have momentous implications for the constitutional system of checks and balances. Moreover, it was coming to light in the wake of then-recent revelations about the warrantless wiretapping program, which circumvented a 1978 statute. The NSA program showed that the Bush administration was willing to act on its aggressive theory of executive power.
This theory was adopted by the Bush administration, after reading the position papers of John Yoo, who in 2001 was in the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel:
Scholar Stands by Post-9/11 Writings On Torture, Domestic Eavesdropping
Yoo argued that the Constitution grants the president virtually unhindered discretion in wartime. He said the fight against terrorism, with no fixed battlefield or uniformed enemy, was a new kind of war.
Interview with John Yoo, author of The Powers of War and Peace: The Constitution and Foreign Affairs after 9/11
The world after September 11, 2001, however, is very different. It is no longer clear that the United States must seek to reduce the amount of warfare, and it certainly is no longer clear that the constitutional system ought to be fixed so as to make it difficult to use force. Rather than war disappearing from the world, the threat of war may well be increasing. Threats now come from at least three primary sources: the easy availability of the knowledge and technology to create weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the emergence of rogue nations, and the rise of international terrorism of the kind represented by the al Qaeda terrorist organization. Because of these developments, the optimal level of war for the United States may no longer be zero, but may actually be dramatically higher than before.
Well, we were always at war with Eurasia. Looks like we always will be too, if that "optimal level of war" is no longer "zero."
I believe that persistent warmongering by this administration has been purposeful, but less for the "noble" causes of nation building and the fostering of democracy than for engaging in a perpetual war to allow the expansion of powers of the executive branch to grow. I think this administration has been purposefully dishonest with America, and the repercussions of this unprecedented assertion of the unitary executive theory are already being felt. We live in a world where the administration can whisk you off the street and throw you in a prison without charges, can torture you if they claim you're an enemy combatant, can open your mail or eavesdrop on your phone calls without legislatively mandated oversight, and can acquire databases full of call logs or web activity from telecom companies just by issuing a non-warrant approved NSL.
They have gotten away with the above, as well as other reckless acts, through war posturing and fear mongering, and I refuse to accept the framework of perpetual war as a means of enabling governmental lawlessness.
I agree that terrorist acts should be pre-empted, but I fail to see how the framework of war is a healthy one - both for securing our elusive ideals of safety, and for the future of democracy in this country.
Powered by ScribeFire.
