[Previous entry: "A Recent Discovery"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Sydney Carter"]

03/16/2004 Entry: "The War on Terrorism"

I'm more and more convinced that to use the language of war to describe the struggle against terrorism is not only inappropriate but highly dangerous. I can see why it is attractive, and nothing stirs the blood of the male like the sight and sound of military hardware on the move. Believe me, it's a guy thing. Declaring war makes us feel like we're doing something, it identifies a clear enemy and stops us being victims. But this is not a war, at least not in any way that makes real sense.

In the first place, in a real war it is perfectly clear which side is which. Civilian casualties, while regrettable, are accepted and inevitable. Soldiers are the main targets of course, but thse who support them may also be a good fit for a bomb-sight. As well as crushing the enemy's military, destroying the morale of the citizenry is also an aim worth pursuing. And, of course, the enemy will try to do the same to us. There are still many of my friends here who remember the nights when the Luftwaffe remodelled Swansea in 1941. Of course, we will deplore it when our innocents are killed. But in a war, we will not flinch from returning the favour.

And that's the difference between war and the struggle with terrorism. In this struggle, there really are innocents. We do not accept that the citizens of our cities are legitimate targets. In a war, even those who give moral support to our enemy are targets. In this "war", pursuing such a doctrine will only make our enemy grow in strength. Imagine what would have happened if British troops had conducted a "war on terror" in the 1970's. Not only would they have had kill or imprison whole communities in Co. Armagh, they would probably have had to invade the USA too! But it was not a war. It was dangerous, difficult and very imperfectly conducted policework. It had to be that way.

The danger of the language of war is precisely that it does tend to lend legitimacy to the targetting, or at least the intimidation, of those who might sympathise with the enemy. Detention without trial, draconian security and the determination for revenge not justice do nothing to improve our security.

Terrorists are not enemy soldiers. Their relatives and neighbours have no place in the sniper's cross-hair. The proper response to terrorism is detection and prosecution. Calling it a war plays into their hands and legitimizes what they do. In this, I think, the Spanish appear to be setting a good example.

Posted by Jonathan @ 03/16/2004 05:58 PM GMT

We don't have a good terminology for this conflict, which falls somewhere between a SWAT team and classic combat. Taking a purely criminal tack will not bring the proper effort to bear, for some of the problems are in areas that are beyond the reach of the US justice system. Something more than police and prosecutors but something less than a full armored brigade is called for.

It's a battle, a conflict, and we tend to call a series of battles a war. You can call it a "campaign", or an "ongoing effort" but to give the urgency that avoiding another 9/11 calls for, "war" seems to be called for.

Posted by Mark Byron @ 03/16/2004 11:21 PM GMT

I wouldn't deny that the military have a role Mark - but it should be secondary to the role of the Police co-operating with international colleagues.

Posted by Richard @ 03/17/2004 01:15 AM GMT

That was a great post Richard, very thought-provoking.

But I wonder if it is the case the nature of warfare has changed, or a new type of war has developed?

This happens occasionally. For example industrialisation led to the widespread adoption of "total warfare" in the mid-nineteenth century.

Posted by Craig @ 03/17/2004 01:41 AM GMT

Not so sure, Richard, although I do respect your opinion. I believe the terrorists think of what they are doing as war, and we would be wise to recognize it and respond appropriately. Furthermore, Bill Clinton tried the police-work approach to the first Trade Center bombing, and about all it got us was another Trade Center bombing. So, with all due respect to you, I think we need to be at war with the warriors.

Posted by Randy McRoberts @ 03/17/2004 06:01 PM GMT

I have been thinking much the same, Richard,though I can understand the point that this way doesn't drum up the supporters to detect and bring terrorists to prosecution. However, talking of 'war' leads to remarks like this one that I read this morning on Technorati's 'Current News' section - "I'm beginning to think that we're in a 21st Century throwback to the Crusades!" God forbid!

Posted by Olive Morgan @ 03/17/2004 06:53 PM GMT