the so-called war on terrorism
the articles begins:
"We've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in the war on terror," Bush said in a speech to military spouses at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington.
war on terror? a term i have been dreadful of since its conception. it is one thing to demoralize our enemy and paint them as faceless and inhuman. that, though a horrible thing in and of itself, is something societies have done since the beginning of history. when we fought the vietnamese, they were charlie: mean, cruel, and faceless gooks that deserved to die. this is obviously not true, and the veterans of the war saw men on both sides slaughtered and many to this day can't sleep at night because of it. war is humans killing humans, no way around it. but my point is that it is nothing new to create a faceless enemy and from a strictly functional view, it is a necessary and good way to handle war.
but this isn't what we are doing. we are going to a whole different place by declaring war on an idea. that idea is terrorism. we can declare war on certain terrorists or aggressors, but on the idea of terrorism? that doesn't even make sense. it sounds great. it sounds just. but it isn't logical or legitimate at all. if a man killed your family would you declare vengeance against him or against the whole idea of murder. sure, idealistically i'd love to tear down the whole notion of murder, but let's be honest about how the world works. idealism is important and has it's place, but this isn't it.
i consider myself a pacifist and wouldn't condone war in almost any case. to say that i would never be for war is absurd because i have not been faced with every circumstance under the sun, and i am sure something could happen that may remove me from the stance of a pacifist... and you better believe that if someone pulled a gun on my wife or even smacked her, i wouldn't be reacting in a pacifistic manner.
but whether or not i am a pacifist, how can a country declare war on an idea? it can't, at least not a REAL war. and i assure you, this is not a metaphorical war. this article is about hitting the 2000 casualty mark. 2000 men and women that i could have shared a meal with, sat next to in class, or working in an office with. that's no metaphor!
the so-called war on terrorism is termed such because it allows us to come into this war with a moral hiugher ground and, thus, makes it harder for officials and the public to voice their opinion against it. "what do you mean you don't support the war? do you support suddam hussein? or the devils that were responsible for 9-11? or worse yet, ARE YOU A TERRORIST?" so we invoke neo-mccarthyism and start a new witch hunt. even the liberals didn't say a word when this war started. after some time, people started to question things, but to no avail. we still have the same administration in office, no changes have occurred in iraq and it seems each day it becomes less evident why we are there in the first place. i am not even sure anymore, and i know i'm not the only one.
don't kid yourselves anymore, this is the new vietnam. we have already lost this and it will continue to drag on. and the less we know why we are there, the greater the loss becomes. and no one even wonders how may iraqis have been killed... soldiers or civilians. if that number were ever to be calculated and released, we would probably not even believe how large it is.
but this is where i find myself at a loss... what can i do? is it enough to invoke questions in others and pray that God's will be done? or should i be writing to my senators and other officials? or more? i feel stuck so many times when looking at large scale issues and trying to see how i can act on a small-scale. the alienation and frustration sets in and i become just another complacent american... or do i?
as always, thanks for reading.
"We've lost some of our nation's finest men and women in the war on terror," Bush said in a speech to military spouses at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington.
war on terror? a term i have been dreadful of since its conception. it is one thing to demoralize our enemy and paint them as faceless and inhuman. that, though a horrible thing in and of itself, is something societies have done since the beginning of history. when we fought the vietnamese, they were charlie: mean, cruel, and faceless gooks that deserved to die. this is obviously not true, and the veterans of the war saw men on both sides slaughtered and many to this day can't sleep at night because of it. war is humans killing humans, no way around it. but my point is that it is nothing new to create a faceless enemy and from a strictly functional view, it is a necessary and good way to handle war.
but this isn't what we are doing. we are going to a whole different place by declaring war on an idea. that idea is terrorism. we can declare war on certain terrorists or aggressors, but on the idea of terrorism? that doesn't even make sense. it sounds great. it sounds just. but it isn't logical or legitimate at all. if a man killed your family would you declare vengeance against him or against the whole idea of murder. sure, idealistically i'd love to tear down the whole notion of murder, but let's be honest about how the world works. idealism is important and has it's place, but this isn't it.
i consider myself a pacifist and wouldn't condone war in almost any case. to say that i would never be for war is absurd because i have not been faced with every circumstance under the sun, and i am sure something could happen that may remove me from the stance of a pacifist... and you better believe that if someone pulled a gun on my wife or even smacked her, i wouldn't be reacting in a pacifistic manner.
but whether or not i am a pacifist, how can a country declare war on an idea? it can't, at least not a REAL war. and i assure you, this is not a metaphorical war. this article is about hitting the 2000 casualty mark. 2000 men and women that i could have shared a meal with, sat next to in class, or working in an office with. that's no metaphor!
the so-called war on terrorism is termed such because it allows us to come into this war with a moral hiugher ground and, thus, makes it harder for officials and the public to voice their opinion against it. "what do you mean you don't support the war? do you support suddam hussein? or the devils that were responsible for 9-11? or worse yet, ARE YOU A TERRORIST?" so we invoke neo-mccarthyism and start a new witch hunt. even the liberals didn't say a word when this war started. after some time, people started to question things, but to no avail. we still have the same administration in office, no changes have occurred in iraq and it seems each day it becomes less evident why we are there in the first place. i am not even sure anymore, and i know i'm not the only one.
don't kid yourselves anymore, this is the new vietnam. we have already lost this and it will continue to drag on. and the less we know why we are there, the greater the loss becomes. and no one even wonders how may iraqis have been killed... soldiers or civilians. if that number were ever to be calculated and released, we would probably not even believe how large it is.
but this is where i find myself at a loss... what can i do? is it enough to invoke questions in others and pray that God's will be done? or should i be writing to my senators and other officials? or more? i feel stuck so many times when looking at large scale issues and trying to see how i can act on a small-scale. the alienation and frustration sets in and i become just another complacent american... or do i?
as always, thanks for reading.
posted by justincharlesharlan at 11:02 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home