About the ‘Global War on Terror’
27 April 2007 12:24 pm by Taylor Marsh
 |
| It’s a man! It’s the president! It’s Terror Guy! |
While Mark noted the lack of guns in the Edwards, Clinton and Obama households
(something that won’t be a plus in a general), that same trio all agreed that
there is indeed such a thing as a “global war on terror,” which
is something not all Democratic activists believe.
No one took Brian’s bait. Terror
Guy and his bunch didn’t get a gaffe.
When Williams asked the “global war on terror” question last night
he might as well have asked Who wants the headline tomorrow that you don’t
believe the “global war on terror” is real, with the surety that this clip will be played
over and over again in negative ads against whomever wins the nomination? In
a forum where sound bites rule, thank goodness Democrats didn’t take the bait.
It was an open invitation to hand Republicans the political gift of the ‘08 season.
But since the debate last night there have been rumblings about the question
on the “global war on terror” and the Democratic candidates’ response.
There is a difference between having a philosophical debate as opposed to a
political debate with a bunch of candidates where you get two minutes or less
to express yourself. Pushing back on the “global war on terror” meme
isn’t conducive to a sound bite. This phrase is so ingrained in the public’s
consciousness that it will take substantive deprogramming to get the job done.
A presidential debate is not that forum. Some people just do not understand
the political trap being set for our candidates in questions like this one.
Perception is reality in politics, particularly in these types of events. There
is no mileage in having a philosophical discussion in a debate forum that times
your answers and doesn’t hold room for clarifications and rebuttals. This is
better suited for a town hall discussion between a candidate and the audience
where he or she can talk at length about the problem with the “global war
on terror” meme.
Take a look at this tape of George Soros (
whom I’ve spoken with, as have other bloggers) who has written a book about
the “global war on terror,” which I reviewed after receiving an advanced
copy. Not even Soros can sound bite the problems with the “global war on
terror” talking point. The video clip has multiple cut aways. It’s a tough subject to sound bite.
Chuck Peña, who is a “libertarian” (small ‘l’ according to
Chuck) and an expert, has written and spoken on the subject many, many times,
including here
on TM.com. Take a look at this
video of Peña talking about the “un-war,” aka the “global
war on terror.”
One reason the “global war on terror” is misleading and the wrong framing is that it implies
military action will solve the problem.
General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National
Press Club on Monday that he had “objected to the use of the term ‘war
on terrorism’ before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people
in uniform as being the solution.”He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the
recognition that “terror is the method they use.”
The “war on terror” was concocted
by a bunch of girlie men who want to keep the nation in fear and suckling
at the great Republican national security teat, which has now run clean out of nectar. Clear enough for you? Democrats serving up sound bites to help them revive themselves is not the answer. That also doesn’t mean the “global war on terror” talking point hasn’t been effective in seducing people into believing there is such a thing as the
“global war on terror” that we must fight. Republicans have been in power for over five years pushing and pimping the “global war on terror” at every opportunity, using 9/11 to do it. Democrats
aren’t going to dismantle the meme during a sound bite night. It’s absurd and political suicide to think they should even try.
Terror is an emotion. If you don’t know by now let me remind you yet again
that this is what the wingnuts trade on every day. Emotion.
Listen to talk radio for awhile. Watch Hannity. There is an emotional tie, even
an investment, with the phrase “global war on terror” at this point,
which connects to 9/11 and military action that must be dismantled one link
at a time. Look how long it took to disengage the American people from Al Qaeda, Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
Terrorism, however, is real. But we all know you can’t defeat terrorism with
war alone. We’ve proven that in Iraq. But the need to target terrorism and the
purveyors of this violence is something to which Democrats are very aware. We
just don’t have the phrase that defines something actionable targeting the creators
of carnage plaguing the Middle East and beyond. Let’s face it, phrases aren’t
our strong suit so here we sit. The Republicans hooked on to the “global war on terror” and made it stick. Launching a discussion on how the “global war on terror” actually incites terrorism is where we need to turn and now that we’ve gotten back in power we can begin the shift away from the Republicans’ destructive and self defeating language and the policies that follow, which have become ingrained in the American psyche, but now are being wholly rejected.
There are multiple levels of debate that will go on from now until the primaries
and then into the general election. The debates and TV forums do not lend themselves
to philosophical airings, but they sure do reveal who’s got sound bite game
and who is savvy enough not to get tricked by set up questions meant to draw
a candidate into a conversation in a setting where he or she will never be able
to fully explain their stance on fighting terrorism. But our candidates do have
an obligation to lay out where they differ from Bush and the neocons on the
“global war on terror” and should do so one step at a time, one sound bite at a time, until the case is built. No one is even close to doing that now. Make
no mistake about it, the sound bite war and the YouTube fear of being caught
mid sentence is not eliciting conversational bravery from any candidate on this
subject. That Democratic and progressive activists do not appreciate our candidates’
dilemma isn’t shocking, because there is understandable impatience for them to move away from the Republican “global war on terror” talking points that have been so destructive to our country and foreign policy. But it is annoying and could even be potentially self defeating for us to discount the challenges in our candidates doing so during a heated campaign when Republicans are waiting to pounce on any half quote.
The “global war on terror” was created by the neocons for Bush and his bunch, then
shoved down the people’s throat for over five years and counting. It can’t be dismantled
in one night, two or even three. But the conversation is one of the most important
ones we can have and Democrats running for office should be willing to at least
come up with a sound bite and maybe even a question to ask the American public
listening in on the pre primary conversation: The “global war on terror”
is a Republican talking point. Does anyone believe at this point that military action or war can solve
the problem of terrorism? That type of response is just a start, because this debate can only play out
over time.
I just hope no one expects Democratic candidates to settle the debate while
running for commander in chief.
