Navigate / search

The War on Terror is poorly named

This Reason article claims that the War on Terror is actually a war on jihadists, and is well worth reading.

“I think defining who the enemy is is a real problem in this war,” says Mary Habeck, a military historian at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies. “If you can’t define who’s a real threat and who’s just exercising free speech, it’s a problem.” As it happens, Habeck is the author of one of three new books that, taken together, suggest the time is right to name the battle. It is a war on jihadism.

Go educate yourself a little bit. Call them Islamists, or jihadists, or Caliphatists or radical Muslims, but don’t do a disservice to the mission by continuing to allow the mission creep that is already threatening to lose this war for us. This is not a war against terror. You can’t fight a war against something that nebulous and win. This is a war against the people who want fundamentalist Islamic governments worldwide. This is a war against people who want a Caliphate that rules the East and eventually the West. This is a war against people who want to force their rigid belief system on EVERYONE.

Much like the War on Drugs is unwinnable, the War on Terror is a pipe dream. The moniker is being used as an excuse for government growth and abuses that would make most of the men and women who founded the United States of America turn over in their graves.

Comments

Dale
Reply

I am not yet convinced that we are at war with extremists. We should be but I think our collective heads are still not right on this point.
There is a rising tide of Islamic believers. Some of these believers want political and state power. Others may have co-opted the movement for political and personal gain.
I just am not yet convinced we have identified all of the actors/players nor has it coalesced into a movement. There is still a piece missing and I cannot put my finger on it yet.

alisa
Reply

I think the analogy between the War on Drugs and War on Terror is apt. It’s large, all inclusive.

I do think a War on Jihadism makes sense though. People can think and talk negatively about the U.S. and the West in general all they want. But as soon as their thoughs/beliefs turn into action against us, we need to go after them.

Tom Paine
Reply

This “war” is being used as an excuse for such growth and abuses outside the US too.The men and women who dictated Magna Carta to King John at swordpoint are necrorotating too. Tony Blair has the nerve to say that anyone who cares is “old fashioned”. We are being asked to submit to tyrrany because it’s “trendy”.

Mary*Ann
Reply

I think you are right. I’m in the middle of Habeck’s book “Knowing the Enemy” and it’s made it clear to me that we need to name this enemy and to get the masses here in the US to understand just what it is they want. And it ain’t oil!

Dale
Reply

Tom P
necrorotating? I am so out of the pop culture loop. What does that mean?

Kitanis
Reply

War on Terrorism is a term… like the Cold War, and the aforementioned War on Drugs. War usually can not be done on individuals.. its done against countries or blocks of nations.

I disagree with our President on this subject.. but salute and carry on with my duties.

I have a bad feeling about the insurgency in Iraq nowdays.. it will have repercussions on the US Politics and the Military for years to come.

Trevor
Reply

Actually, Alisa, the War on Drugs is just a war on people who choose to use substances proscribed by the Federal Government or state governments.

It’s really a war on individual freedom. Sure, some drugs are bad. But taking away property and liberty as an excuse to keep people from choosing what they can put into their bodies is, in my opinion, much worse.

We’ve made no progress in stemming drug use or drug supply in this country in 40 years. The only place we have made “progress” is in stemming various civil liberties all the while degrading once sacrosanct property rights.

Leave a comment

name*

email* (not published)

website