The War on Terror: a retrospective

Here’s an article I wrote about our perpetual elephant in the room – the War on TERRORRRRR! Dun dun ba-dunnnnn.

The War on Terror: a retrospective

If wars age in dog years in a democratic society, then the War on Terror has just turned 70. Not a bad place to be, considering that at 70 you’re senior fare eligible and can still make it up the stairs. Since it’s exceedingly difficult to reward a war’s longevity with a gold watch, maybe we should instead celebrate the occasion by pulling some chairs up to the fire and having a good old-fashioned chat, you know, to see if the war has accomplished anything.

Before any effort is spent exploring the merits of our Long War, it may be worth pausing for a moment to consider who it is that we’re fighting. This is a question seldom asked in the history of warfare, because the answer has tended to be fairly obvious: the people who are killing you. Unfortunately, this war seems to be the exception, and our experience waging it has driven home the point that if you don’t know who you’re fighting in 2001, chances are you’re even more confused by 2010.

If the war is against terrorism itself- that is, acts of violence perpetrated for political ends- then this war will definitely have legs. To wage war against a concept has historically been a pretty hard go, and the prospects for winning a war against as nebulous a concept as terrorism are probably only slightly better than winning a war against sadness. The outlook is even more dismal if you subscribe to the school of thought that believes terrorism is rooted in poverty and war, in which case the methods we’ve employed are comparable to fighting a war against sadness by ripping kittens apart in front of children.

On the other hand, it could be the terrorists that we’re fighting, and by extension the states to which they pay property taxes on those caves we’ve heard so much about. The terrorists make for an easier, less philosophically-intensive enemy because we can see them, and we know that they’re terrorists because of the way they look at us all cock-eyed and suspicious-like. Thus, as a society we’ve proudly transitioned from fighting wars against the conventional ‘people who are killing us’ to ‘the people who we are killing.’

How have we fared in our War against Terror? So far it’s been somewhat of a mixed bag.

Here’s a brief recap: The terrorists originally passed time by shooting bales of hay with their AK47s in Afghanistan. They were bombed. Fair enough. Then, feeling in the mood for a double dip, the American government indulged itself in another round of democracy bombing, though this time in Iraq. Like Kismet, out of the smoking rubble emerged a new load of the terrorists, ready and able to serve as justification for a long-term American military deployment in Iraq. So far so good, we’re fighting the terrorists and judging by the piles of charred corpses- we’re winning.

That’s the part of the mixed bag that contains sweet-tasting candy of victory. The rest of its contents are more reminiscent of the sun-scorched mayo of regret.

Fast forward six years and all of a sudden you can’t watch a news report without involuntarily mouthing ‘what the fuck?’ In Afghanistan, NATO troops are blown up daily protecting a government that displays an aptitude for corruption that would make Richard Nixon soil himself. The government of Iraq, on the other hand, has decided to take the much more dignified though equally disturbing approach of politely waiting until US troops pull out to kick off its civil war.

What’s worse, if the media isn’t dwelling on our heroic though misguided failures, then it’s providing cursory glimpses of the terrorists in places we haven’t even bombed yet. ‘Is that the terrorists?!’ you blurt out during a news report on Pakistan or Somalia, squeezing your tin of Bud Light and spilling some on your filthy sweatpants.

Sorry man, but it is. The terrorists are everywhere these days. They’ve been able to shrug off two robust campaigns of democracy bombing and it seems increasingly unlikely that the missiles of liberty will be once again ripping the sky asunder anytime soon. Still reeling from the financial fuck-bomb of 2008, the United States- our world’s go-to terrorist hunter- will eventually be forced to pawn off all of those neat-o predator drones and water boarding sets for a few gold bars.

‘And that, my son, is how the terrorists won’ – a fitting last line to stories that the terrorists are no doubt hotly anticipating telling their yet un-bombed children. We on the other hand have no choice but to keep our doubts on lockdown and heroically stay the course. If our kids chirp up with, “What’s the waw on tewwow, daddy?” They get a, “go to your room!” Even if the war is technically unwinnable, we should still have about a decade or two of delusion left in the tank.

We’ve now arrived at the uncomfortable conclusion that no matter how many of the terrorists we bomb, they’ll just pop up elsewhere like some macabre game of whack-a-mole. Does that mean we should stop fighting? Definitely not! Of the myriad of things that our delicate North American sensibilities cannot tolerate, two tower above the rest: losers and quitters. This war may have already branded us with a scarlet L, but whether we get a Q to match can be delayed indefinitely.

Just focus on the positives. Our hearts are in the right place and the war will continue to provide symbolism that we’re comfortable with: they’re evil (we’re good), they hate us (reasons unknown) and I heard from some guy in the park that they have nukes the size of skittles (Colin Powell). Who knows, maybe we’re just ten years and another 50,000 bodies away from turning this mother around!

Edited: May 26th, 2010

Iraq: a state divided – GPM Article & Commentary

Iraq is being interpreted as somewhat of a success story vis-a-vis the more apparent failure unfolding in Afghanistan. There is a kernel of truth to this- the Iraqi insurgency has ebbed and the new political infrastructure has taken a more comprehensive hold outside the capital of Baghdad. However, the overall sectarian situation within Iraq is anything but stable and there’s no reason to believe it will get better anytime soon. Here is what happened in Iraq over the course of just one day, December 16th, courtesy of Iraq Body Count :

Man shot dead in Alya, Khanaqin
Policeman shot dead in al-Hajj Ali, south Mosul
Off-duty policeman shot dead in Mosul
Policeman on Dec 22, from wounds from bomb explosion, al-Muaalimeen, Kirkuk
Body of 42-year-old man found shot dead in al-Nada, south Khanaqin

(more…)

Edited: December 31st, 2009

Ferguson: An empire at risk

Harvard’s Niall Ferguson wrote an interesting piece for Newsweek titled an empire at risk. His article touches down on several scenarios that may come out of America’s massive deficit spending ($176 billion in October alone). According to Ferguson, as the federal budget is more and more encumbered by debt repayments, the first thing to go will inevitably be defense spending. Makes sense to me.

The people over at the RealClearWorld Blog, however, point out that a reduction in American defense spending from the present 4 percent of GDP to a projected 2.6 percent by 2028 would be enough to maintain America’s hegemonic status. Perhaps this is true, but if we assume that China continues its breakneck growth, by the 2030s the international system should be shifting into bipolarity with several other powers (India, Brazil, Russia) in the wings.

Edited: December 1st, 2009

What would an early exit from Afghanistan look like?

This week’s GPM forecaster is about what a post-NATO Afghanistan would look like. I personally think it’s an interesting topic, because the debate over whether or not we should pull out is more determined by emotional factors- not wanting to ‘lose’ and have made such sacrifices in vain- rather than practical ones such as whether the whole thing is actually ‘winnable.’ It’s starting to seem a lot like that Vietnam thing I’ve heard so much about!

Full text after the jump…
(more…)

Edited: November 25th, 2009

Karzai to world: don’t fret, I’ll make it all better!

That war in Afghanistan was looking pretty bad for a while there! What with Transparency International dubbing Kabul as the world’s second-most corrupt government, and the fact that Afghanistan has pretty much become a narco-state, one could get the impression that Afghanistan has become somewhat of a lost cause.

But wait! President Hamid Karzai is back to take one more kick at the can.
(more…)

Edited: November 19th, 2009

Back and a few GPM articles

Back from Florida, will have some nice new content in a few days after my mind recovers from being beaten down with alcohol for twelve nights running. Until then, here are some nice articles from the GPM:

India, China & the IPI Pipeline
Arctic ownership update
The India lobby in the United States

Edited: November 17th, 2009

Karzai’s decision

Afghanistan’s Electoral Complaints Commission has confirmed what we’ve all known for a long time now: Karzai didn’t get a clean 50%.

So, what now?

(more…)

Edited: October 19th, 2009

Charles Krauthammer on Obama’s foreign policy: Amateurish! Does that make Bush a Pro?

The Washington Post’s go-to naysayer Charles Krauthammer took a giant rhetorical dump on President Obama’s foreign policy thus far. Let’s see what he hates:

(more…)

Edited: October 16th, 2009

Interview on Media Monarchy

Did about an hour-long interview with James Pilato over at Media Monarchy.

(more…)

Edited: October 16th, 2009

The inevitable decline of the US dollar as global reserve currency

New article up at the GPM: US dollar: Condition terminal

That the US dollar will eventually be replaced as global reserve currency shouldn’t come as a surprise. As power becomes more equally distributed in international politics, America’s competitors will be less inclined into being forced to finance American debt whenever Washington politicians put on their deficit boots (and prob a cowboy hat). That being said, it’s a process that will play out over the course of several decades.

Edited: October 9th, 2009