The "War on Terror" vs. "The Cold War"

[Marnieworld]

For some time now, I have been frustrated by people validating the phrase "War on Terror." Democrats, after 9/11, fearing not terrorists but spin from the media and the GOP that they are "soft" on terror, surrendered to this framing, this phrase, in the immediate aftermath. They, the country and the world have paid the price of this mistake ever since.

There really is no logical reason why the response to 9/11 should have been any different than the response to the original WTC bombing or the Oklahoma City bombing. It was a small group of criminals who were responsible. The crime was investigated and those responsible were caught and punished. The only difference was the number of casualties (significant to be sure) and the psychological horror of watching it live on TV. Yet, in the immediate aftermath, as we know now from many sources, Cheney Rumsfeld and the PNAC wanted to use the event to invade Iraq or any other country they chose. Now we've not only invaded Iraq but we outsource torture, we have our own torture camp in Cuba, we can be spied upon without any oversight by the government, and the "Unitary Executive" can do whatever he pleases because "We are at War." Treaties are irrelevant. The Constitution is trumped by the concept of "war time." The "enemy" changes as need fits. The "War" will never end and therefore these extraordinary powers will be indefinite. The moment we Democrats, we Americans, accepted that we were at "War" with a group instead of a nation state we ceased being a democracy governed by our Constitution. We don't have a president- we have a "Commander-in-Chief."

So I reject the whole concept of the "War on Terror" completely. Al Queda is no different than the mafia and not nearly as lethal as a guaranteed Hurricane Season, annually increasing in ferocity. Though even if one wants to concede to this "War" concept then why won't anyone compare it to the "Cold War"?

FISA was written in the days of the Cold War. If hundreds of nuclear weapons were pointed at us from a hostile nation for so long how is that less of a threat than what a gang of Islamist thugs could do? How could that law be written then but not applicable now? Why didn't we start torturing then? Wiretapping citizens then? Demanding library records? Searching our houses without warrant or notification? How is the terror threat more of a justification than nuclear war? They even have to make Al Queda stronger in their rhetoric by saying they might get the weapons from hostile states. The weapons that already threatened us for decades but only now are enough of a threat that we have to sacrifice so much. It's nonsense.

We should reject this war concept and if not then start comparing it to the Cold War to limit the powers they've gained based on "War."

[tritsofme]

1. At first blush, I would point out that MADD does not exist

against this sort of enemy.

At least the Soviet Union was for the most part a rational adversary, who didn't want to see the extinction of the human race any more than we did.

This is really more about life in the post-Cold War world, and not at all comparable to the Cold War. The enemy is not a formal state, they don't fight under any flag, they are small independent cells. These cells would have no scrupples about detonating a dirty bomb in a major Western city, whereas the USSR and the West always had MADD to fall back on.

[Marnieworld]

2. So perhaps we go after "these small independent cells"

and just not call it a war? I'm not saying we don't try and stop these people at all. I just don't think that it is justification for all of the freedoms we lost and they are hiding behind the "war" word. War is between two nations. There is a beginning, a middle and an end. Just because the group of people would like a dirty bomb and would use it doesn't mean they are more of a threat than the people who actually had the weapons pointed directly at us. Intention is not enough of a threat to justify all that they have done in the name of this "war" if the threat of the actual weapons was not deemed enough before to allow all of this destruction of our freedoms and the spirit of our government of checks and balances. If Nixon was stopped when we had a nuclear enemy then why isn't Bush when we have a wannabe nuclear enemy?