War on terror is for weaklings

The blogs are taking Bush's War on Terror to the workshop.

People were attacking the inanity of this policy right from the get-go but without a sufficient counterproposal attacks and criticisms only reinforced the jello-kneed policy.

Stoller writes:

"The war on terror doesn't have a self-corrective mechanism. The only metric for success is arrogant certitude on the part of global elites and fear on the part of everyone else. If we are afraid and Bush acts fearless, the war on terror is going well... Now I am not arguing that the war on terror doesn't have rules, or that terrorism is to be coddled. I am arguing that the war on terror is a framework that values self-delusion, certitude, stubbornness, and weakness."
Apart from its failure to capture bin Laden and no way to tell how well it's going, Stoller continues, the War on Terror simply provided cover for the Bush administration to drop the ball in every conceivable area in which the government is suppposed to protect and support the people.
"[R]ather than beginning on 9/11/01, is the final metaphor of the 20th century, the last gasp of an international order that broke the League of Nations, allowed the rise of fascism, confused Communism with imperialism, fought the success of the Marshal Plan, and weakened American influence through rogue actions during the Bush Presidency."
And, in fact, if you turn to Noam Chomsky, he told a Trinity College audience earlier this year: "Since facts matter, it matters that the War was not declared by George W. Bush on 9/11, but by the Reagan administration 20 years earlier. They came into office declaring that their foreign policy would confront what the President called “the evil scourge of terrorism,” a plague spread by 'depraved opponents of civilization itself' in 'a return to barbarism in the modern age' (Secretary of State George Shultz)."

He proposes the international intervention in Bosnia as a counter-framework to the war on terror. But what is it called? Is it applicable to other situations and other nations? Is a new process required for each conflict and issue? Is that really the problem with progressive v. conservative language; i.e. that the underlying progressive ideology is to assess situations with compassion and humility as they arise, therefore precluding pert and palliative language? Discuss. (MyDD)

--> Sign up for Peek in your inbox... every morning! (Go here and check Peek box).

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. AlterNet’s journalists work tirelessly to counter the traditional corporate media narrative. We’re here seven days a week, 365 days a year. And we’re proud to say that we’ve been bringing you the real, unfiltered news for 20 years—longer than any other progressive news site on the Internet.

It’s through the generosity of our supporters that we’re able to share with you all the underreported news you need to know. Independent journalism is increasingly imperiled; ads alone can’t pay our bills. AlterNet counts on readers like you to support our coverage. Did you enjoy content from David Cay Johnston, Common Dreams, Raw Story and Robert Reich? Opinion from Salon and Jim Hightower? Analysis by The Conversation? Then join the hundreds of readers who have supported AlterNet this year.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure AlterNet remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to AlterNet, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

alternet logo

Tough Times

Demand honest news. Help support AlterNet and our mission to keep you informed during this crisis.