Thursday, July 28, 2005

Worldwide Conflict Against Big Meanies: I hope this is a bad dream. Is the Bush administration really going to stop calling our fight against terrorism a "war"?

In a subtle move, administration sources say they are moving rhetoric away from "Global War on Terrorism" and are beginning to say "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism".

The problem with "war", they say, is that it sounds like a military mission, and this fight against Al Qaeda and other Islamofascists can't be won simply with the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines.

Well, no shit.

We've known all along that this won't be a typical war -- fighting against the government of one country until they submit to our demands for peace. But, unlike the "War on Poverty" and the "War on Drugs", this is truly a War. We were attacked, we will be attacked again, and we have to defeat our enemy in order to protect ourselves.

In addition to our military endeavors in Iraq and Afghanistan, we may have to send small units of special forces to destroy terrorist threats. The rest of the time, the CIA and the FBI will have to investigate small terrorist cells in order to prevent such attacks.

And just like any war, diplomacy and political posturing will play a big role. But just because our enemy has adopted cowardly tactics doesn't mean that the threat is any less real. They aim to destroy us, and we have to destroy their capabilities to wage attacks first. That's done through traditional military endeavors in addition to using diplomatic and cultural influences.

Even though the fight in Iraq hasn't gone as swimmingly as we would have hoped, that doesn't mean were not doing some good or accomplishing our mission. There's no reason to retreat from our strong rhetoric. Weakening the language makes it sound like we're not taking this fight as seriously as we should.


Post a Comment

Copyright © Staunch Moderate
Using Caribou Theme | Bloggerized by Themescook