5 Responses to “John Kerry”

1. From Inwood says:

   February 7, 2009 at 2:43 pm

   After Obama said in his inaugural speech that we must “reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals”, “scrappleface” posted a satire entitled “War On Terror’ Ends, Obama Starts ‘Case Against Terror’ ”. Some of us don’t think this Obama approach will work well with respect to the “our safety” part.
2. Ritchie Emmons says:

   February 7, 2009 at 3:17 pm

   How about “War Against Islamic Terrorists?” Do you think this is along the lines of what Obama is thinking?
3. J.E. Dyer says:

   February 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm

   The lurking point here is the most important one: Obama’s administration doesn’t know what it thinks the War on Terror OUGHT to be.

   Of course, not all of us would define it the same way. For example, I don’t think of the occupation of Iraq “as” the War on Terror, but as a campaign IN the War on Terror, which includes a strategically coherent package of different measures, and campaigns on multiple fronts: regime-changes, special operations abroad, law enforcement collaboration abroad, “information” operations (to communicate the positive message of American/Western ideals and values, including tolerance and respect for Islam as a religion), a host of intelligence measures (collection, analysis, foreign collaboration), and improved domestic surveillance and law enforcement, consistent with the priority of civil liberties.

   What I suspect is that in the search for a new name for the effort, Obama will end up sunsetting some of the elements of the current War on Terror. If we see it renamed “The Case Against Terror” (good one!), United States v. Terror, the “Terror Conflict,” or even just “Anti-terror operations,” as with “Counternarcotics operations” — that will mean we have, in fact, stopped waging it as a war.

   Of course, I recognize that with Obama at the helm, we have already relinquished the offensive posture. We are on defense now, in the Terror Conflict. We won’t be seeking to change any basic conditions, or interdict anything at the source. Oddly enough, it would be UN-Obama-like for the new administration to choose a new moniker aligned with that reality. Maybe they’ll just leave it as the War on Terror, to give it an appearance of heft that it will no longer have.
4. Diane says:

   February 7, 2009 at 3:58 pm

   But “struggle” is a weaker term than “war,” and one wonders if this heralds a weaker effort.

   i would say “struggle” also implies an uphill battle, with little chance of swift success. Think “struggle of the proletariiate” or “Palestinian struggle.” Calling today’s conflict the “Struggle Against Terrorism” could have a demoralizing effect on our side. And morale is an essential ingredient to winning any battle.
5. RCAR says:

   February 7, 2009 at 4:08 pm

   I’ll be happy about the term “War on Terror” as soon as our Justice Dept removes Luis Posada Carriles (Bambi) from his fine home in Miami.
6. Maine's Michael says:

   February 7, 2009 at 4:09 pm

   How about “War on Bullets, Explosives, and Other Dangerous Devices”?

   Makes as much sense as “War on Terror” did.
7. wdriver says:

   February 7, 2009 at 4:25 pm

   How about “Talk a Lot About Terrible Things.”
8. Peter Shalen says:

   February 7, 2009 at 4:44 pm

   James Taranto has suggested calling the people we are fighting “Islamic supremacists.”
9. daniel says:

   February 7, 2009 at 5:01 pm

   “Struggle” is it? Hey, why not “Jihad”!
10. g says:

    February 7, 2009 at 5:35 pm

    No, it’s the Jihad against Jihad.
11. J.E. Dyer says:

    February 7, 2009 at 5:39 pm

    Come to think of it, maybe “on” IS the problem. It’s being used in a really tired, non-evocative way here. In the spirit of Obama’s youthful admirers and evanescent po-mo persona, I can suggest:

    “It is so ON!”

    “It’s ON like Donkey Kong!”

    A multimedia concept recognition fragment would really stick it to the wall as Next-Gen here. Perhaps some weedy-looking tech guys from Verizon central casting, lurking in the background striking cheer poses and doing spirit fingers.
12. Pat G says:

    February 7, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Daniel (Cmt #9) implied it, but I’ll come out and say it. “Jihad” translated literally into English means “Struggle.” I would have to think that it would work both ways and Arab readers would be reading in their newspapers that the United States has declared a Jihad against Al Qaida.

    I will concede (in advance) to any quibblers that there other words are sometimes used in English when translating “jihad” but I’ve read elsewhere that Arab editions of “Mein Kamp” sold in Egypt (reportedly a very popular book there) are entitled “My Jihad” (in Arabic).

    I would bet that “Jihad” would go ove as well with them as GWB’s one-time use of the word “crusade” in the Fall of 2001.
13. TGermany says:

    February 7, 2009 at 7:38 pm

    Everyone’s missed a crucial point: Liberal Democrats believe that the only good “Wars”, are those “Wars” fought against the greedy capitalist, imperialist conservatives and neo-cons.

    War on Poverty, War on Hunger, War on Equal Rights – Good.

    War on Terror, War on Crime, War on Drugs – Bad.
14. contra says:

    February 7, 2009 at 8:56 pm

    #5, RCAR: I’ll be happy about the term “War on Terror” as soon as our Justice Dept removes Luis Posada Carriles (Bambi) from his fine home in Miami.

    This appears to be a non-sequitur, because our Justice Dept
    is (fortunately) not in charge of our wars.

    As for Luis Posada Carriles, I am glad to hear that
    the hero is living in a fine home. He was active in the “War on Terror”
    even before the name was coined. The world needs more people
    like him.
15. Chris Bolts Sr. says:

    February 7, 2009 at 10:12 pm

    I agree that the term “war on terror” is a pretty bad term. I prefer to say “war against terrorism”. The difference is while “war on terror” makes it sound as though you are declaring a war against a tactic, “war against terrorism” states that we are waging a war against those who would practice or carry out acts of terrorism.

    That being said, I think all of this is stupid. If the Lefties had spent even an ounce of their hatred that they exhibited towards Bush towards the terrorists we would’ve won this war a long time ago.
16. contra says:

    February 7, 2009 at 10:22 pm

    Picking on the word “on”, or the word “terror” is pointless,
    The exact meaning of a term is not deducible from its etymology.
    A hot dog does not bark, a red herring needn’t be red,
    anti-Semitism does not denote hatred for all Semites.
    The Hundred Years’ War lasted more than a hundred years.

    “Terror” is an abstract noun, not a party
    to the war. The word is, however, chosen aptly – because
    one side in this war happens to use predominantly
    terrorist methods.

    There’s nothing wrong in this name, as long as we understand it’s
    merely a name, and do not make a fetish out of it.
    Our ultimate objective in the war is survival – not, per se,
    the suppression of certain methods.

    Even when we use similar methods ourselves
    (as we do in targeting Al Qaeda leaders),
    this involves no inconsistency… (cf. #14)