"We are at war"

[Stinky The Clown]

That phrase just plain pisses me off.

"We are at war"

I would like to see it banned from the square of public discourse. It is draconian in its intent. It is misleading on its face. It is simply an artful misdirection to conflate the adventitious mess in Iraq with the larger - and, frankly, quite real - worldwide watch for terrorist activity.

And that leads me to part two .... how to conveniently reference the worldwide watch for terrorist activity? 'War on Terror' might have been a good shorthand in a different time. But not now. Too close. Too Orwellian.

Other equally bad terms are the ones like "Struggle Against Terrorism", or "Fight Against Terror"

I'd love to see the (larger) Left begin to use alternate terms for these two phrases. Because words **do** matter.

The 'War in Iraq' is really just, as Jon Stewart so ably terms it, the 'Mess-O-Potamia'. While perfectly descriptive, it isn't a good term to use in serious discussion. "Iraq Occupation" is closer to the truth, but conveys the wrong message to the Middle East, to say nothing of the rest of the world; it also fails to convey the intent of the majority of our citizens. "Iraq Adventure" might be better.

As to terrorism, "War on Terror" is wrong for many reasons. It is definitionally incorrect (you can't have a war against a tactic). It is imprecise ('war' is between two sovereign entities). Most importantly, it uses the word 'war' as a rallying point for far darker purposes than protecting innocent people around the world.

I have always agreed with John Kerry's notion that terrorism will be with us for a long time and, in a more prefect world, will simply be a police matter - a nuisance, as he termed it. He was absolutely correct to have said that. His terms were inartful, at best. If you accept his notion - and I suspect most of us do - then all we need is a better way to conveniently express it.

I suggested "Worldwide Terrorist Watch". Not bad .... but not very emotive.

We need new terms, And we need to start using them. As we always seem to do, we use the terms of those who oppose us. And in so doing, we simply play into their hands. These two issues are the center of their entire political argument. And they use it wisely and effectively.

We need to stop it.

[WannaJumpMyScooter]

1. Agreed. I write my congressidiots weekly

demanding an "up or down vote" on war.

Lets declare it.

[RebelOne]

6. How can we be at war when Congress never declared it?

I wish someone would enlighten all the right wing nuts to that fact. I'm sick of hearing "We are in a time of war."

[young_at_heart]

2. I've said the same, many times

WE are not at war....Bushco is. How dare he drag the public into his political soundbite push for dominance and oil. I've never once believed it had to do with "spreading democracy". My family NEVER supported this WAR!!!

[mike_c]

3. I say the "war against Iraq" which at least calls it like it is...

...and use the terms "invasion of Iraq" and "occupation of Iraq" to describe the early and later phases of the war against Iraq. Of course, "crime against humanity" sums it up nicely, too, as does the more succinct "war crime."

[thereismore]

4. War on Iraq. nt

[Spoonerian]

5. "War is the Health of the State"

And conversely, a state--with the power to confiscate from its subjects nearly a trillion dollars a year and transfer it into the hands of the military industrial complex--must produce war and lots of it.

Especially when the state is composed of democratically elected states-men and when the near trillion dollars per year props up industries that support the middle class technocrats and the lower class murder brigades and their clerks.

Until the whole pyramid scheme collapses from its own weight, we must get used to being told by Church Ladies who empower Bushco and the Soccer Moms who may succeed in replacing them with a Hillary or a Kerry that, "We are at War."

[Stinky The Clown]

12. Uh .... can I take that as agreement?

[Spoonerian]

13. I'm in general agreement

with your being pissed off when somebody tells you, me, or anybody, "We are at War."

And I liked the response from the guy who says he emails his congressman every week telling him that according to the congressman's constitution that he's supposed to have drafted a declaration of war if he thinks he's "at war."

But my response to this crud is more like this, "No, YOU may be at war. You and your fellow counter clerks at the Burger King that serve the technocrats at the Martin Marietta office complex who build the bombs for YOUR troops to incinerate Iraqis--YOU ALL--may be "at war," but what's this "We" bullshit??

[Vickers]

7. "OK, who will you accept surrender from?"

:shrug:

That always slows 'em down.

Good post, btw...I try to emphasize many of your points with my dumber friends/relatives.

[Sinti]

8. He's now calling it WWIII. Someone else renamed it "the Long War"

There is no War On Terror. If there were, we would have hardened our seaports long ago, they're just now talking about that. We would have hardened our chemical and nuclear facilities, our food distribution and water distribution facilities and services. If this were a real fight against the tactics of terror, these things would have been job one. There would be a lot of money and thought going toward them.

We're planning on building 175 new nuclear bombs a year, I don't think we're going to be using them as a deterrent against a handful of hyper-religious zealots hellbent on murder/suicide. Wouldn't that be, after all, giving them exactly what they want?

This is a war for oil and world dominance, as outlined in the PNAC plan, and partly in the Grand Chessboard.

All of the above is strictly my opinion, based on the given facts, and not intended to offend anyone's sensibilities.

[Stinky The Clown]

9. What's with the dislaimer?

"All of the above is strict my opinion, based on the given facts, and not intended to offend anyone's sensibilities."

You're a very smart person! :) Not yet a thousand posts and already you know that anything that's said on DU is liable to reward the poster with a chewed off head from the swarms on the other side of any stance! :eyes:

Welcome to DU! You'll do well here! :hi:

[Sinti]

11. Thanks :) It's part of the instructions for my flame-retardant suit. n/t

[treestar]

10. I agree, we are not a people suffering as that implies

Most of us are having a pretty damn good time. I was at a pro baseball game a couple of weeks ago and for whatever reason, that must have been on my mind. As the camera panned all the screaming, silly people (when they realize they are on that camera, they jump up and down like little kids), just having a grand old time, I thought it would make a great commentary to have a video of Americans screaming at concerts, shopping, laying around on the beach with a voice over saying "These people are at war."

The "we are at war" excuse is thin when most of us aren't really paying much of a price.

We need a new term for this kind of "war." We are in an imperialist adventure or a preemptive strike, but don't try to make it sound so serious as "we are at war." It's just dishonest.

[Jai4WKC08]

14. I disagree strongly

I think "War on Terror" is a winner, especially if we can convince people that we are losing that war. Because we are. And we really can't afford to.

I don't accept the point that you can't have a war on a tactic. "War on Terror" is just shorthand for "War on Terrorists." OBL did in fact declare war on us, he committed an act of war against us (several in fact), and he (or whoever is carrying out his mission) is more than just a few cells holed up in Pakistan -- there is a larger network, even if it's not centrally controlled. Besides, we've had wars on things other than nation states. War on Poverty. War on Drugs (and I'm not about to debate whether that one is worthwhile; just saying the name is used and widely accepted without people confused about what its objective is). I would be much happier if Bush had gone to Congress for a formal declaration of war. But even there is some historical precedence. Jefferson "took us to war" against the Barbary Coast pirates, also not a nation state (altho supported by one), without a formal declaration.

I don't much care whether we call the Iraq fiasco a war or not, altho I am very much opposed to the way Congress (to include many Democrats) lets the President assume war powers without a declaration -- for example, he is not supposed to be able to call up the reserve components over a certain number or keep them on active duty over so many days without a formal declaration. But I think the main point we have to hammer home, over and over, is that what we are doing militarily in Iraq, whether we call it a war or not, has NOTHING to do with the War on Terror. The Bushies constantly conflate the two, and most of the people who still believe we need to "stay the course" in Iraq (other than the hardcore Bush apologists, who will swallow anything and ask for more) do so because they buy that we're fighting them there so we won't have to fight them here.

[Stinky The Clown]

15. Can we agree to respectfully disagree?

On your second paragraph, I can take little issue. On your first, however, is where we disagree.

As I said, the term, as shorthand, in any other time, would be good. But in these times it brings up too damned many images of Il Dunce as strong and our side being wimps. By changing the term we can change the paradigm and thus the imagery.

And we **must** change the imagery.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Sorry Husb2Sparkly, we are not going to "change" the imagery....

much as it would be much better if we could. We don't have the capacity, because it's been too long labeled.

The imagery is now set in stone.......as of 9/12/01. We do not have the tools to **change it**

In fact, a refusal to "go with the term" will probably be more harmful to Democrats than anything else we could do.

The General population understand more and more the difference between the "War in Iraq", and the "War on Terror", and that is very significant. America supports the "War on Terror", but not the "War in Iraq". We have won the hard fought battle to make sure that the two didn't get confused, as the GOP wanted it to....however, "we are at war" is still very much true.....and the fact that both "Wars" have been and continue to be mishandled is true as well.

[Jai4WKC08]

17. I'm with Frenchie

Big surprise there, eh? ;)

We can't change what people feel about 9/11 and the threat that terrorists pose. Hey, I'm not always sure they do pose that big a threat, but that day is burned into most people's hearts and minds. My own included, but I can usually separate my gut feelings from my ability to do some rational analysis. Most people don't even try.

But we sure as hell can change the image that Il Dunce (I like that) and the rubber-stampers in Congress are winning that war. We don't have bin Laden, dead or alive. Al Qaeda and its assorted partners are doing fine and growing in membership -- directly due to Bush's policies. Terror incidents are up overall (and not counting Iraq). The ports are not secure. No one believes airport security does any good. Afghanistan is a basketcase, and Pakistan may be not far behind them. Hamas now runs Palestine. Nuclear weapons (and other WMD) are proliferating. Katrina showed that we can't respond if there is another major attack and are no more prepared to do so than we were on 9/12. There's probably more stuff I'm forgetting. Hell, the hardest part is figuring out how to articulate just how badly Bush has fucked it all up, because there's so damn much of it.

[Stinky The Clown]

18. Correct ..... no surprise there.

But I continue to think we **can** change the terms of the debate .... at least our side of it.

Its easy, actually. Just stop using their words.

Use our own words. When someone asks about "The War on Terror©" respond using **our** term for it and then expound on it in much the same way you just did to me.

Many of our leaders are already starting to use alternatives. What would be good if we could all agree to one term. To hear the word in four part harmony is better than a silent aria sung in the shower.

[Jai4WKC08]

19. Well, ok... I don't know for sure if we could or not

If we could get every Democrat started using a different term (like you can get Democrats to do the same thing about anything), maybe we could. But I still don't think it would accomplish what you want.

Besides, the Repubs have always been good at turning our own words against us. Liberal, for example. Who would have thought 30 years ago that there was anything wrong with being a liberal?

Why can't we just take their term and make it create a different image in people's heads? It's not like we don't have enough real events and problems to back up the new picture.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Image something like this .....

Dem-X is being interviewed ..... he's asked some lame-assed baiting question about "The War on Terror©". He responds with "The President's Elective War on the Iraqi people has been a miserable failure. But what's really worrisome is how they've done so pitiful little with respect to making our borders safe. The have yet to implement port security ........ "

It slaps down the whole stupid-assed "The War on Terror©" thing, redirects to the question to our issues and never goes back to "The War on Terror©" or "The War in Iraq©" or any other Orwellian bullshit.

Some of our people seem to be doing this. Some better than others. Others ..... not so much at all.

As to getting them all using the same terminology, I'm more hopeful about this. I'm starting to hear soem consistent messaging. I think ol' Doc Howie's been a big part of that .... and good on him. I also think Pelosi gets it .... witness her travails at the ham hands of Fat Timmy yesterday.

[treestar]

21. If we are at war, don't we have to accept reality that there will be

more attacks against us and that they can't all be prevented?

911 didn't leave any occupying force. It was over and done.

A real war is much worse than 911, I'm afraid. Ask the French or the Polish. It lasts a lot longer and the suffering is more than just a burned heart.

Terrorists attacks in Iraq do not count to the average American. They don't care about those people. They aren't even people, in the eyes of the average American. They have no rights to justice when accused, they all are Arab/Muslim (an unindividuated group that "wants to kill us") - the sheeple here are unconcerned with their suffering.

[maine_raptor]

22. My Answer to "We're at War", "Which War?"

Let's see we got:

"War on Terror"

"War in Iraq"

"War on Drugs"

"War on Obesity"

"War on Crime"

"War on Poverty" (now mutated into the "War on the Middle Class")


We got too many damn "wars" to keep track of. So which war you're talking about depends how those on the left side respond.

Get them to define which war they are talking about and then respond. The Right just loves to take many issues and lump them together. Get them to narrow the scope of the discussion. You'll win the debate every time.