When a War is Not a War
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in The War On TerrorismA few days ago, Justin informed us that there is no more War on Terror. At least not in the language of the British government, where they’ve chosen to stop using the phrase. The Brits said terrorist fanatics are not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless death cult. The official added:
The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers. They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way.
Well, it’s never been a “war” in the traditional sense. But I am much less enthusiastic about this development than was Justin. The events of the last decade have not been some crime wave carried out by an “aimless death cult.” The aim of these terrorists is pretty clear: to decrease Western and Western-allied power and make room for the ascendancy of their corrupted, radical brand of Islam. The most applicable word for these terrorists is “guerilla.” Like guerillas, they are part of a loosely (sometimes extremely loosely) affiliated network of rebels who share a common ideology and compatible goals.
I guess “the struggle against loosely affiliated, radical Islamic guerilla terrorists” is not exactly a workable name. But it’s better than no name at all. If we do not categorize events such as 9/11, London, Madrid and others as part of an ongoing pattern, we are denying that there is a bigger picture that requires bigger strategies. Additionally, labeling the perpetrators as “fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals” is overly dismissive of these terrorists who very much consider themselves soldiers in a global conflict.
Language matters. Labels help guide thought. I agree that the term “war” is far too limiting and contributed to the kind of narrow thinking and propagandizing that took us into Iraq. But neither is it helpful to approach these terrorists as if they are half-insane death cultists or members of some crime syndicate. The truth is more complex.
I’m sure that the British government is still taking the global threat of radical Islamic terrorism seriously. But I’m concerned by their use of language. We must find words that walk the right line between overstating and dismissing the struggle at hand.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 2nd, 2008 and is filed under The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:27 am
I have always felt that the Brits, with their past experience of dealing with terrorism in India, Pakistan, Ceylon and Northern Ireland, had a far better handle on the relevant language than has the likes of GWB.
As a matter of history, the Brits have never dealt with terrorism as a “political” or “military” threat although the military has always had a major part in the response and control of terrorism.
Terrorism, in the British lexicon and in mine, has always been a crime; to be dealt with ultimately through the justice system.
It pleases me to see a return to that previously successful approach.
January 2nd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Was there ever, then, a “war” in Iraq? After the first year or so, the baathists had been defeated, and much of the insurgency became religious in nature and focussed its attention on softer targets. Even though the total number of casualties increased, the aimless murderers were not wearing uniforms and were targetting mainly civilians. Just a series of thousands of criminal acts with no political motive or long-term strategic goals?
Well, at least we don’t have to worry about “root causes” anymore, since acts of terrorism are no longer to be considered part of an ideological mass-movement. Who ever talks about addressing “root causes” of bank-robbery or insurance fraud?
January 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Jimmy–
You could argue that war is when soldiers are being killed, the crime of terrorism is when civilians are being killed. That really gets you nowhere in the longterm (they are waging war on us in Iraq but we’re mainly waging a police action on them?). But I suspect that’s the distinction many people make — without even realizing the complexities of that viewpoint.
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 pm
“They are waging war on us in Iraq….”
The ongoing unrest in Iraq is due to the terrorists’ homicidal acts. Civilians, along with our troops are still being killed - but not by us - though the numbers and the incidents have decreased since the surge.
Would you suggest we leave and pretend the terrorists forget their cause and go back home?