A War Without End

June 22 2004
Counterbias.com
Marc Krug

The war on terrorism can never be won. Nor can it ever end. Neither result is logically possible because "terrorism" is a policy, not a tangible enemy. Hence, any war waged against it can neither have a winner nor an ending.

The questions then become: how did we get involved in such a war? And how can we get out of it?

The "war on terrorism" began as a catchphrase description of America's proposed plan to defeat al-Qaeda, destroy bin Laden, and decimate the Taliban who were perceived as accomplices and supporters. Speaking of this plan as a "war on terrorism" was appropriate for two very good reasons: first, it made sense to wage war against both the organization and the individual believed responsible for the September 11 attack. Second, that attack fit the traditional definition of "terrorism": the calculated use of violence, primarily against civilians, to attain political, religious, or ideological goals.

But Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Armitage, and Perle wanted to do more than just make war against bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and the Taliban. They wanted to invade Iraq, depose Saddam, and take control of that country--a plan several of them had written about as early as 1998, well before Bush had even taken office. Unfortunately, these men had one major problem: Iraq had not taken part in the acts of September 11, nor had it collaborated with those who did-so there was no built-in, pre-existing justification for war.

Consequently, the Bush administration needed to come up with a believable rationale for invading Iraq; they had to convincingly explain how and why such a war served America's vital interests. To accomplish this task, they had a choice: either the Bush administration could build a legitimate case, cite valid justifications, and specify truthful reasons. Or they could do something far less savory--deceive, dissemble, dissimulate and, whenever necessary, flat-out lie. Unfortunately, they chose the latter option.

What Bush did to sell the war was frighteningly effective. As a first tactic, Bush would mention two or more entities, persons, or events--e.g., Iraq, al-Qaeda, and training grounds--in quick succession several times in the same speech or set of remarks. He hoped the listener would then mentally connect them in ways that were advantageous to Bush's interests, as in, "Iraq served as a training ground for al-Qaeda terrorists."

As a second tactic, he would imply that there were certain connections (usually of an ambiguous nature) between two entities, persons, or events--e.g., Saddam and September 11. He hoped that listeners would then infer that these connections were causal: as in, "Saddam was partly responsible for September 11." As a third tactic, Bush would stretch his interpretations of the facts beyond the bounds of truth, as in, "you can't distinguish between al-Qaeda and Saddam in the war on terror."

Bush used these tactics frequently and convincingly-often with a tone of moral righteousness, heightened by the authority of his office. Unfortunately, he succeeded beyond what anyone could have guessed: in a New York Times poll taken last April, 40% still think that Saddam played some role in September 11, even though Bush himself has openly disavowed this connection. Earlier, more than 60% held that same belief, although after months of investigation, the 9-11 Committee could find "no credible evidence that Iraq and al-Qaeda cooperated in attacks against the United States."

Through it all, Bush made certain that what he said could be easily remembered and subsequently believed; he kept it as uncomplicated yet incriminating as possible. He did this through repetition, innuendo, murky speculation, and by frequently using a simple, memorable catchphrase -- "the war on terrorism."

As catchphrases go, "the war on terrorism" seems eminently salable and largely effective. It not only allows Bush to hygienically refer to a whole series of vicious acts, it also allows him to effectively hide the historical reality of the situation-Iraq had not committed a single act of terrorism against us until we invaded their county. Only after we forcibly occupied Iraq, killing both soldiers and civilians, did "Operation Iraqi Freedom" become something Bush could accurately describe as a "war on terrorism."

But in addition to all of the mistruths, untruths, and distortions of the truth he has perpetuated, Bush has done something even worse -- by declaring a "war on terrorism," he has committed us to a war without end.

Such a war cannot end because "terrorism" is a policy, a concept of the mind and not a physical entity. It cannot ever be defeated--at least not in any traditional sense--nor can any war fought against it ever be won. And a war that cannot be won is a war that cannot end. Regrettably, this would give  Bush justification to keep prisoners taken in this war for as long as he chooses. And allow him to watch casualties mount until 800+ seems a mere pittance and yet never attend a military funeral.

The simple question remains: if we cannot fight a war against a policy, is there anything we can do? Speaking in terms more idealistic than realistic, all we can do is kill people who believe in that policy and who subsequently practice it. But unless we have some incredible power to catch them in the act, or to find and identify all of them after they have acted, we will never know for certain who and how many to kill. Thus, we will never be sure whether we have made any progress nor will we ever know when the "war on terrorism" might end.

What we can be sure of is that terrorism may never end: it has motivated people for thousands of years and will likely motivate them endlessly into the future. As Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker recently said of Iraqi terrorism, "it's never going to go away in our lifetime."

So far, in what is now known as Iraq, terrorism has lasted well over a century: first against the Ottoman Empire; later against the British; and now against us and the other forces fighting there. Common to all these targets of terrorism was that they forcibly occupied Iraq.

So as to getting out of the "war on terrorism," perhaps the first step is for us to leave; to no longer forcibly occupy Iraq. But before leaving, we should do more than simply grant the Iraqis sovereignty--whatever that term might mean to Bush. We should grant them complete independence.  And then let us summarily depart, preferably before the end of 2005 as the UN agreement stipulates. Let's go back and ask the UN for an earlier date of departure.

In the interim, let us also give up on the foolish notion that a democracy can thrive in a culture that has been entirely unaccepting of one for centuries. Let us stop trying to grow flowers in concrete and simply allow the Iraqis whatever government they want--whether it is a theocracy, an oligarchy, a monarchy, or some other variation.

We have no right to impose any form of government on the Iraqis other than what they choose to have. After all, as Bush so often claims, the main reason we are fighting there is to ensure that "the Iraqis are free to choose their own government." We can only hope that when Bush says this, he's doing something more than uttering another misleading catchphrase.

So the next time you hear Bush use the catchphrase "the war on terrorism," please keep in mind what he is doing. He is trying to sell you an abstraction and prevent you from knowing the reality of the war in Iraq. Because the reality of that war is far uglier than any abstraction could ever be.