Spinning a 20 year war

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4897786.stm
Are we really ready for war that's PLANNED to last two decades?

All it will take is just one United States president saying No to this war, to the Fundamentalist and to the Neo-Conservatives and to the Republican Party.

All it will take is just one United States President saying, we are going to change things and then for him to ask Congress to repeal the Dept of Propaganda er I mean Homeland Defense and the Patrorit Acts

Seems the Republicans need a war to stay in power eh???

Read chapter 9 of 1984
Orwell was a genius
still as relevant today as in 48

Never thought the word "terror" could mean so many things. It turns out to be the quintessential wild card of the language of English. The damn thing can stand for anything and everything we deem foreign.

Troy

Lebensraum

Indeed. That whole section is brilliant and chillingly applicable.

What shocks me is that people are suprised by the notion of a 20 year war on terrorism. Did anyone think it would be over in four? The history of human conflict shows that more often than not wars last a long time, or come back in double shots after an long interval. (Historians will ultimately conclude that world war one and world war two were basically the same conflict IMHO).

Taken in context 20 years is a pretty average war given the scope of human conflict. It may well be that that is about the length of time it takes until both sides are ruined or exhausted by the conflict, to the extent that a period of peace ensues for rebuilding.

heh, revealed for an optimist I am.

Who is terrorism?

Exactly the point. It is an undefined concept, much less ambiguous than a nation state. And wars against nations states lasted decades, or centuries. Now we have an undefined concept and we are waging war on it. Just like we wage war on drugs, or obesity, or poverty or crime.

Well the war on terrorism is a war on a concept that will not go away. So is anyone really shocked that the plan is a 20 year plan? really?

War on abstract nouns!

You cannot utilize military force against abstracts. Otherwise we would have shot all the poor people and all the drug distributers/users (war on poverty and war on drugs). Wars, in the case of nations, must be war'd from one nation to another or against a specified group of nations.

So. Who is terrorism?

Hmm we seem to be having a comprehension problem here.

1. The war n terrorism is, in fact, a war on an abstract concept. One that the american people, and political representatives from all sides, bought into heavily following 9/11. Never mind that there was no defined enemy, and that terrorism is an abstract action genereated by a variety of people for a variety of political/social/religious purposes-the US is currently waging war on terrorism. Thus as open-end as the abstract concept of terrorism is, does it realy come as a suprise that any war waged against it would last 20 years? I sort of figure it would be indefinite.

2. Human conflicts are not short. A 20 Year war is probably average. thus planning for a 20 year war should not be suprising, especially when the enemy is an abstraction and not a nation. If conflicts between nations take 20 years, is it unreasonable to expect that a a war on an undefined concept should take that, or more?

3. Wars certainly do not need to be waged between nations, or by one nation against another. More often than not, in human history, wars are waged by "nations" against insurgent groups, but insurgent groups against insurgent groups, by "nations" angainst cultural groups, by cultural groups against cultural groups, by warlords against warlords, and gangs against gangs, and nations against any one of the above.

4. One may argue exactly what is meant by the term "war" which is, infact, an abstract concept itself. War can be defined as a state of focusing maximum national effort at accomplishing national policy. that would be a more modern concept of strategy, which does not rely solely on the application of military force (since for better or for worse the new strategic thinking does not confine itself to military thinking). In that case one can say that a War can be waged on the abstract concept, with the battles being fought over the manifestations of the abstract concept. This is a a militant politicians wet dream of a war, as it allows the application of military force over a widespread area, at will, with little need for further policy justifiction. Only Napoleon had such a widespread mandate from the people for military force projection. (Hitler is a bit of a different story-arguably he sold his mandate to the people, he did not get it from the people).

5. Ultimately the question of what is terrorism does not matter to whether or not people should be suprised by the planning for a 20 year war on it. My point was entirely this. If 20 years is not a historically long time for a war, why are we suprised the current plans for the war on terrorism are based on a 20 year projection?

Wars must have a defined enemy, wars cannot be fought without enemies. We could restate our military actions to more validly be "A war against Afghanistan" and "A war against Iraq" and "A potential war against Iran". However, we never declared (in the terms that make sense) any such war on those peoples.



Thus my question, Who is Terrorism (as that seems to be taking the place of the enemy). If I waged a war on Illiteracy, I could say something to the effect that my enemy is Illiterates, but that still doesn't give me free reign to attempt to make literate, people who I have not yet identified as literate or illiterate.



I disagree. In the terms one uses war where nations are concerned, war is between nations only. If you're fighting 'insurgents', it is called "putting down a rebellion" or a "Military coup" depending on who wins. When both sides stand to lose no matter the outcome, it is usually called a Civil War or a Phyrric Victory should one side 'win'.



Playing with the definition does not change what it means in the context it is used. A nation can have a war on drugs, which fits the above definition. A focused effort to stop something. However, when military force, or armed forces, are concerned, that context does not fit as policy justification. Imagine a War on Religion. Would you first consider it a war of ideas (a concerted effort to convince someone of your viewpoint) or would you expect troops marching through the streets shooting baptists or some such?



I am not suprised at a possible length. I am suprised we have no declared enemy. It is far more efficient, if we are going to use military force, to be able to point that force at a specific, well defined, non-abstract, enemy.

So. Who is Terrorism?

sorry for jumping off topic a bit, but there have been proposals to use nuclear weapons in the war on poverty:



you can now return to your abstractions

You answer your own first point. Terrorism is the enemy. ther eis nothing that says an enemy has to be designated. War is not about an enemy it is about enforcement of a national will, all who oppose the national will are defined as enemies. Thus the national will is to stop terrorism, and then enemy is anyone, anywhere, and anything that support terrorism as means to an end. If you promote, particpate, plan or fund terrorsim, you are an enemy. It is a borad definition, and scary. The cost of this war, interms of civil liberties and due process alone will be staggering.

You are simply wrong about your definition of war. It is hard to explain, but the concept of war is entirely independent of the concept of the nation-state. War is, inessence the arena of armed conflict, but really it extends, under current strategic thinking to forms of conflict outside simple miliatry action. "putting down an insurgency" is a war. you can label it a deployment, or a police action or an operation, but war is simply war.

Its not a matter of playing with the definition, its a matter of strategic thinking and national objectives. War is accomplished less and less through the application of miliatry force, though the war on terrorism so far has had plenty of that. War now includes economic pressures and a wide range of sanctions that fall far short of armed conflict. Also conflict between politcal proxies is a war. The cold war was very much a war, and yet the USSR and US never fired a shot at each other-except for maybe the ones fired at Gary Powers.

If one is going to war with the baptists, I would expect both a war on ideas, economic sanctions, and when cells of the dangerous baptists are identified I would expect troops to march in shooting, if there is a reasonable military goal that can be accomplished.

the unitlization of troops is only one aspect of modern strategic pplanning and evaluation of conflict. Unfortuately it is becoming the least understood aspect, which hurts Strategic planners immeasurably. However one truth of armed conflict is that as the geo-politics have changed, and the national interests have changed, so has the role, structure and utilization of armed force.