|
Somebody
1/13/2009 7:01 AM | I think it might be fine to declare war on a group too. "War on Al Queda", etc. |
|
dorrier2
1/13/2009 7:06 AM | Agreed, these "wars" are nothing but attempts to sway the American public towards supporting a measure via appeals to patriotism. In reality they serve no purpose when there is no definable criteria for winning the war. Call it what it is, an attempt to curtail militancy and terrorism against the United States or an attempt to limit drug use in the United States. |
|
Woozle
1/13/2009 7:30 AM | Somebody: It might be ok to declare war on a group if you can explain how you know whether someone is in that group or not, who the group's leaders are, and what their goals are (with evidence, please)... or at least something about the group as a set of known individuals rather than some hazily-defined menace.
As I understand it, "Al Qaeda" doesn't really exist as an entity (has any terrorist ever been conclusively identified as actually belonging to al Qaeda? how??), and is just a label slapped on any person or activity the government wants us to be firmly against. In other words, "war on Al Qaeda" is the same as "war on terror".
Even if we can identify them, however, it seems to me there are much more intelligent things we could do than "war" on them. How about infiltration? Espionage? Informational campaigns to discredit the group and/or win potential members over to our side? This "war" has only convinced more and more regular folks over there that we are the bad guys, and that terrorism is the only way to fight back. "War" helps "al Qaeda" grow.
|
|
zak.nick
1/13/2009 3:14 PM | a plea from all the innocent victims of America's "war on drugs" ...millions massacred, displaced, tortured , silenced, oppressed from all the black market funded non-state actors (think Al Qeada, FARC, the Colombian Paramilitary/Military/Government structure currently in place, bloodthirsty insane Mexicans (imitating Pablo Escobar, who imitated Al Capone and the best of people like Machine Gun Kelly, except it's hundreds of billions of crime money created by this so-called "war" on drugs...why? why create such a dangerous world? |
|
peterbilt_47
1/13/2009 5:39 PM | Amen. Throw this Orwellian garbage in the trash, and never insult the American People with anything like it again. |
|
fauster
1/13/2009 6:00 PM | Cheney used the "War on Terror" to defend torture and illegal wiretapping. He noted that Lincoln suspended our rights during a war. Data-mining all U.S. Interent traffic because we're supposedly at "war" with abstractly defined citizens and non-citizens is a national shame. |
|
swooshmaiden
1/13/2009 8:06 PM | You make a very clever point; by pitching something as a "war" the president can get away with anything! Such initiatives are unconstitutional power grabs that play on people's emotions and need to be reined in. |
|
OleEmmy
1/13/2009 9:48 PM | The world has enough violence - lets stick to positive initiative names - and keep unnecessary militarism out. |
|
PhyberDragon
1/14/2009 12:47 AM | Great Idea! But, it must be added that the Constitution Gives Congress the Power to Declare War. The President's must stop side- stepping this point. It is not for them to Declare War on anyone, anywhere, at any time. They may Petition Congress via a detailed written Request, but, they may not start Wars.
The Concept of Pre- Emptive Strike must go. If I were to brutally or fatally strike another individual, and my only defense to the Court was, "I believed (thoughts not being provable) that said individual was going to brutally or fatally strike me first," even though it were a provable fact that the individual never made a single movement or statement to that effect at any time, would I get away with it? No. And why should Government. There's almost nothing seperating Government from Criminals anymore. They may as well just be one and the same if they are not already.
And, I am so sick of all these Conflicts and Crisises that are waged all the time, and for every little thing. Congress declares War, not the President. And anything that may provoke or instigate a War should belong to the Congress to Declare as well, by proxy. And don't tell me as Commander In Cheif of the Military it's his Right. Executive Orders are Legislative tools having wholly Legislative functions. The Constitution states very clearly in very understandable English, that, only Congress may WRITE and PASS LAW. It is the President's job as Top Cop to enforce those Laws. It is not his Right to dictate how that Enforcement gets accomplished. That is Congresses Responsibility (TO WRITE LAW governing Society- that includes the President and the Executive Branch, they are not outside of the Scope of Society) and they do not have the Constitutional Authority to shift that Power anywhere or to anyone else. The President may not take any Military Action that Congress did not first put into Public Record and Approve. To think the President can dictate how He accomplishes the Enforcement of Laws is ludicrous, He has some discretion and leeway, yes, but, He has no say where Funding is Concerned. He cannot dictate His method or means of Enforcement, if such comes at a price which is not His to Authorize-- not one red cent of Activity can He Initiate or Condone. Enough is Enough
I think Holders of Public Office or Trust should be required to have a Major in American History and Government, as well as the respective Fields of Study as directly relate to their Positions. Hard to believe there are no Educational requirements at all. |
|
PhyberDragon
1/14/2009 12:51 AM | Further, the President may not Interpret the Law and apply it as He sees fit, that is the Province of the Court. And when the Court said that it is the province of the Court to say what the Constitution says and therefore what Law is. Again. Wrong. It is the People's Constitution, We say what it means and we have final say as to what the Law is. It is our Country, Our Constitution, and Our Laws.
This scandal of government that believes that if we don't do anything short of Civil War to overturn a Law or Ruling of that Law (like the Civil War to overturn the Dredd Scott decision) then We have Assented to such Law or Ruling is the real Audacity of Government.
No more Abstract Wars. No more War, Conlict, Crisis, or Actions being called By the President, or the Military, or the Industries, or Corporations, or anyone else which Congress did not approve. If We disagree with Congress We can Address Congress about our issues or We can Vote 'em out. It's bad enough that Family after Family, the PreDominately upper 1% of the Country, and the Educated as well as the powerful members of so many Orders and Societies get to dictate to the masses, but, everyone needs to stop sending us off to die to protect your wallets and dirty little secrets. We're getting really sick of it. Blackwater wants to protect it's Clients' fine, let their Clients go through the same process as the President to get Congressional Approval-- with a detailed Plan on Public record, so noone can say that anyone Public or Private led us to bloodshed while Our Congress was unaware.The Congress answers to the People. Government and the Private Sector must answer to the Congress with Full Disclosure and Transparency. No one would ever run a business, publically, the way Government does in the dark. You'd think that Al Capone was really in charge with all the blatant money laundering and arms/ munitions/ drug smuggling and raqueteering that goes on in those secret budgets and compartments. |
|
andykenya
1/14/2009 1:19 PM | America too easily defines a Country or another Country's Leader as "the ENEMY" and then takes a war-like position towards that leader and/or that Country, e.g., Hugo Chavez, venezuela , our neighbor to the South. There is a historical backdrop to the rhetoric of Hugo Chavez. It is the many decades of American domination and exploitation of Latin America. Our policies towards the Countries of this hemisphere, e.g., Central and South America, the Caribean, etc., have often been the root of their uninterrupted poverty. With America as a neighbor this entire hemisphere should be well ahead of the tragedy of dehumanizing poverty. Let us listen to the cry before we judge it to be the voice of an enemy! |
|
andykenya
1/14/2009 1:23 PM | Eisenhower, just before leaving office, warned about the unholy marriage of the military industrial complex. America, and the world, are paying a very heavy price because our Country's leaders have never heeded that warning. We grow evermore deeply controlled by this unholy relationship. |
|
andykenya
1/14/2009 1:25 PM | If we conclude reasons to subsidize another country's military then we should earmark an equivalent amount for that country's social and economic development. The goal should be to reduce the need for an expanded military capability at all! |
|
abbayya
1/14/2009 1:39 PM | The new motto of America should be TOLERANCE, LOVE AND CO-EXISTANCE with all people in the world. |
|
Sascha M.
1/14/2009 2:19 PM | Phantastic Idea!
I would declare a "war" on using the word "war" unless attacked by an invading army.
In that vain, have somebody assigned to make sure that no more Orwellian word concoctions will come out of the White House. ;-) |
|
JoelG
1/14/2009 2:55 PM | Yes, no more war on poverty! |
|
Woozle
1/14/2009 3:32 PM | JoelG: I agree. The same thing applies: "declaring war" on anything is almost never the best way to fight it. We need intelligence, observation, analysis...not brute force.
|
|
SeattleLiberal
1/14/2009 3:48 PM | The War on Poverty ended a long time ago, JoelG and was replaced with a War on the Middle Class ... but it is interesting that this turn of phrase is the headwaters for the newspeak that is the War on Drugs and the War on Terrorism. Woozle thanks for this topic. |
|
Spoonless Eddie
1/14/2009 4:10 PM | I hear you loud and clear, Woozle. I have had the same thought many times. |
|
Spoonless Eddie
1/14/2009 4:12 PM | "No future president should have the kind of carte blanche which was granted to Bush, and which resulted in the horrors of Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo."
Yes. Alas, we said the same thing after Nixon.
|
|
quadkid
1/14/2009 5:40 PM | i think sending more troops to afghanistan would result in a quagmire no less disastrous than iraq. beware afghistan becoming obam's war. |
|
PengXiao
1/14/2009 6:24 PM | We declare war on abstract concepts. |
|
juliap
1/14/2009 7:11 PM | Moreover, it seems these wars on abstract concepts have been instrumental in political gains over recent years. Each president since Nixon has used the War on Drugs to win political support and preserve the illusion of successfully wiping out America's drug problems, when they have actually done no such thing!
The War on Terror too has been known to have alternative motives, but by using the fear-mongoling term of "terror", US citizens submit out of blind fear to terms they might not otherwise agree with.
|
|
Paul08876
1/14/2009 7:28 PM | Agreed. The war on drugs has made us the most incarcerated nation in the world, has wasted billions of dollars and served no one other than those small few who profit from the pursuit. Reduce its funding and allow it to fade away.
The war on terror, while inconveniently named, identifies something that will require much more careful attention. My basic premise is that this “war” will not be won with an M-16 rifle or a 500 lb cluster bomb. We must marginalize the radical elements in the Muslim world. Ignore their actions wherever possible. Take defensive measures but limit offensive, punitive and preemptive strikes.
Work through 3rd parties to provide clean water, food, medicine and, particularly, access to secular education to the local people whose abject poverty makes them easy targets for the institutionalized brainwashing that the radical elements employ. |
|
notyouracademy
1/14/2009 8:15 PM | The War on Wars on Abstract Concepts! I agree wholeheartedly! |
|
Andy Hailey
1/14/2009 9:23 PM | I agree and posted another version here:
http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004wMd&srPos=2&srKp=087
|
|
Rubbysh
1/14/2009 9:30 PM | Unfortunately even this website has put the words "War on Waste" into President-elect Obama's mouth during a video supporting his new economic plan. I was very disappointed to hear that same old rhetoric being used so soon in the game, even if they were trying to paint it in a positive light. War is not a positive word. |
|
John4866
1/14/2009 10:32 PM | There should be no more undeclared war. If we go to war, Congress must declare it. Perhaps, the concept should be extended even to social issues, such as drugs. It cannot simply be an Executive act. |
|
Troxel
1/14/2009 10:40 PM | The Iraq conflict was started by greed of oil and to turn over weapon stockpiles to stimulate the American military industrial complex. President Bush gets more toys to play with and Vice President Cheney gets to load up his private business budies with no-bid contracts. This government needs an audit. |
|
Beelkeel
1/14/2009 10:51 PM | also the war on immigration |
|
SF-Thoughts
1/14/2009 11:39 PM | Thanks Woozle for sharing your thoughts with us. |
|
Srnart
1/15/2009 12:34 AM | Drugs are hardly abstract. |
|
besseta
1/15/2009 7:15 AM | Before any more troops are sent to Afghanistan and before others are expected to remain there, review the history of the place and culture and the history of JFK in Vietnam.
Staying in Afghanistan is SIMPLY A BAD IDEA. This is a failed state that will not be anything else for many decades.
I see two legitimate policy goals there, one more difficult than the other:
(1) Prevent the emergence of new and revitalized training camps for terrorists who would leave Afghanistan. This we should be able to accomplish from the air.
(2) Begin to substitute other forms of economic activity for the drug trade. This is more difficult and would likely take many, many years.
The first goal does not need nor can it be accomplished by 20-50,000 US troops.
I would wager every nickle I have that staying in Afghanistan and/or sending more troops will not serve the best interests or national security of the American people.
Think twice about this. Then think again.
|
|
DubaiDale
1/15/2009 9:20 AM | No quarrel with the simple concept of having "No more wars on abstract concepts." However that is a gross understatement and over simplification, not nearly touching on the underlying problem. Abstract concepts become the construct upon which to wage the initial war of first obtaining the support of the American Masses to go to war. In addition to such flawed "War on______" constructs, we have been lead astray by more concrete ideas like "The Domino Theory" and "Weapons of Mass Destruction." Even mottos like “Remember the Maine" have been used by our politicians to win us over to fight unnecessary and unjustified wars. And out right lies [or at least turning a blind eye to the need to verify information], whether it be a torpedo attach by swordfish in the Gulf of Tonkin or a meeting between representatives of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, have been a characteristic of American “War Lord” Imperialism for far too long. We have a huge ego problem. Beams obscure our own vision when we attempt to remove motes from the eyes of other nations.
There are far better ways to deal with bin Laden than trying to catch him by taking more US Forces into Afghanistan which is having adverse collateral effects both in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. When a Saudi emissary presented a large check to "noun, verb and 9/11" Giuliani to help with immediate disaster relief, that gift came with a piece of free but soundly rejected advice. "Re-examine your Foreign Policy in the Middle East." That piece of advice was repeated a second time by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. If a solution to the bin Ladens of this World is desired, then we must "Focus on the problems of this World," not the “bin Laden” like symptoms of those problems. It is not that Iraq distracted us from Afghanistan. It is that bin Laden was used to distract us from the Israel/Palestine problem, a problem we helped create as far back as 1948.
Just look at all of the symptomatic problems which can be traced to back to 1948! Lebanon, Syrian, Egypt, Iran [twice now and soon for a third go round], Iraq [though falsely dragged in], Sudan. A more evenly balanced foreign policy would have strengthened American Diplomatic Powers, powers which have never been weaker. So much for the concept of Carrying [not swinging] that Big Stick which TR called for more than a century ago!
|
|
Chrystina
1/15/2009 10:06 AM | Thank you, DubaiDale! (You were much more concise than I would have been.)
|
|
halsparks
1/15/2009 10:44 AM | Whatever we declare war on in this country we immediately get More of. Try to think of one thing that has lessened, weakened or disappeared since we declared "war" on it... there isn't one.
Drugs, poverty, terrorism.(.pardon me "terror"..which is insane. How do you declare war on an emotion?) all of these have grown exponentially since our "declaration of war" on them.
It's a stupid analogy. simpleminded and ineffective. |
|
ScrubSage
1/15/2009 10:52 AM | The War on Terror
Bush got it wrong from Day One: What occurred on 9/11 was a monstrous crime, not an act of war. By declaring a war on terror he actually elevated a stateless terrorist organization to the level of nation state, thereby strengthening Al Queda. Instead of asking Americans for their patience and restraint - the difficult choice - W stoked their anger and outrage.
Iraq was a convenient surrogate nation state against which Bush could prosecute a real war, hopelessly squandering international goodwill and diverting resources that could better have been deployed to international law enforcement, counter intelligence and counter espionage agencies that do the real work of redressing international criminal conspiracies.
Expanding and prolonging the war in Afghanistan, as noted above, invites the same fate that befell the Brits and Russians. We should employ the tools of diplomacy and international development to assist the people of Afghanistan overcome the obstacles that the Taliban exploit: poverty, ignorance, corruption, lack of infrastructure and so forth. Let a beefed up CIA, teamed with special forces and local operatives, go after Osama Bin Laden. That is not a job for the National Guard and Reservists who should be home by now.
Afghanistan may prove to be a stickier quagmire than Iraq has been after 4,000 US and 100's of thousands of Iraqi lives have been extinguished. Let's not go there Mr. President Elect.
|
|
Albertine
1/15/2009 12:14 PM | Obama says that Al Quaeda is the 'biggest threat' to the US.
Surely the Zionists are the biggest threat - they even seem to run our government. Why has OBAMA been silent on the bombing of the UN compound in Gaza - and the murder of hundreds of women and children, and the BURNING ALIVE of babies with phosphorus? He has not even called for a cease fire.
These are war crimes. Why can't he say so?
Obama's silence is chilling. It means we cannot believe him, as everything he does will be controlled from Tel Aviv. |
|
JESSAHAE
1/15/2009 1:05 PM | To Srnart: A war on drugs is, in fact, abstract since it does not specify exactly who the enemy is. Is the War trying to stop drugs from existing? Not going to happen. Is the war trying to stop people from using drugs? A monumental task that would also include doctors and hospitals. Is the war trying to stop people from selling illegal drugs? Money will always win that struggle. Who is fighting in this war? Who are the 'good guys' and 'bad guys?' Criminals breaking the law? Make it legal and the buyer, seller and user of drugs is no longer criminal! The reality is that illegal or not- drugs are available for use and abuse. To end abuse it is better to deal with the abuser. To end drug usage is beyond realistic expectations. They exist. The 'War on Drugs, much like the war on anything, causes more corruption in more creative ways than if dealt with peacfully. Attacking anything, abstract or real, will only lead to violence and a painful End Game. |
|
Richard62
1/15/2009 5:30 PM | |
|
othermother6
1/15/2009 8:44 PM | Maybe self defense is okay. Maybe avoiding the need for it is even better. Why id that we can't figure out a way to stay out of war? Is it maybe because our citizens get lots of jobs related to the industrial defense complex? Do folks know that the same technologies that build wind turbines are the ones used to build war planes? It seems to me that we can do better.
Othermother6
|
|
tassie
1/15/2009 9:04 PM | War is a blunt, cruel and inhumane weapon that should be avoided until our brightest thinkers have exhausted all diplomatic and other civilized means to gain the ends we seek. A commission on on "Anti-War" should be created; and their reports, comments, ideas and strategies should be fostered. These thinkers, diplomats, scholars, churchmen and spiritual leaders should be extolled to the extent we now extol our warriors and generals. Put money into these avenues opf conflict resolution and see a very real reduction in national costs--no more drain from our treasury and no more of the tragic loss of the lives of our brave young men and women. |
|
Political debater
1/16/2009 8:47 AM | The idea of pulling out from Afghanistan could have had significant effects when there was a legitimate UN sponsored Afghan government in place during the post Soviet occupation. Thirty five years past and the same child born then now he is a 35 years old man, and has no formal education but to fight for his meal. The free enterprise market slogan in Afghanistan is that: “you cannot buy an Afghan, but you can only rent one.”
Do the math and multiply the number to an approximately 35% percent of the population. Say 10 to 12 million has marksmanship skills with Kalashnikov rifles and ready to be bought by any warlord who is also financed by our petro dollars that you and I pay for the oil sheiks who are Taliban sympathizers.
In the past, we have already turned our backs towards Afghans when they fought fiercely with every drop of their blood in order to eradicate communist ideology from their homeland. As everyone negatively comments that Soviets were beaten in Afghanistan similarly Genghis Khan, so was Alexander The Great, and Then The British, which are obviously true. First and foremost they had no business being there. In the case of The Soviets it was because our (US) forceful anti communist view supported the Mujahedeen. Their son’s now the Taliban have turned into a bunch of Billy the Kids and Pretty-Face Floyds who are roaming wildly to destroy human civil liberties in every inch of the region.
The U.S. has all the legitimate right to be in Afghanistan. This is because we did not install a reasonable UN sponsored government during the power vacuum of Soviet withdrawal. This is the reason we are in Afghanistan to fulfill our responsibilities.
In the similar manner, if we did our job in Afghanistan I believe 9/11 would have been avoidable.
Therefore, we need to finish the unfinished job which we left behind in 1989. Should we abandon them once again and let the fail state be a breading ground and safe heaven for the terrorists? Is your freedom at home dispensable? Certainly does not apply for me and neither for my children and the future generations to come.
On the other hand, Bush administration in the past 7 years diverted the attention from the core cause of terrorism to Iraq, and now Afghanistan is in the tipping point that could possibly revert into an uncontainable chaotic and explosive region. |
|
Jackbnimble
1/16/2009 8:57 AM | War needs to stop being used as a standard political policy and be viewed as it realistically is. The potentially worst solution to any given problem it could reasonably be applied to. Expensive in human lives and resources, extremely descructive to the local economies involved and to political good will. That's not even touching on the underlying immorality of war in general! |
|
PaulVenetian
1/16/2009 10:18 AM | No more "Czars" of this or that as well. |
|
jamb
1/16/2009 11:41 AM | Wars on abstract concepts are fine as long as you bound the results youre driving for with quantifiable metrics.
For example: War on poverty. Reduce % of american families below the poverty level by X%. |
|
Esoteric Knowledge
1/16/2009 4:52 PM | I think just the title is great, I don't even need to read the rest. Super clear and to the point. Great wording Woozle! |
|
BillJD
1/16/2009 5:17 PM | Terror is a tactic, not an organization, so you can't have a war on it. You can have a war on a terrorist organization, but not on the concept of terror itself. |
|
Political debater
1/16/2009 5:21 PM | For those of you who did not get the chance to see our plan please see it under "Nonmilitary Solution For Afghanistan"
In our eyes as natives all of them will work but Item No.1 is urgently needed at the current moment.
It is a matter of convincing the Obama transition team.
I really need a chance to explain my plan.
I have contacted every Senator in foreign relations committee, ex-policy makers, current political analysts in Brookings and RAND Corporation, governor Bill Richardson, Kai Eide UN special envoy to Afghanistan, US Ambassador in Afghanistan Mr. Woods, Ex US Ambassador in Afghanistan Robert Neumann, Secretary Robert Reich, General Collin Powell, Caroline Kennedy, Elizabeth Alexander spokesperson for Joe Bidden, Congressman Charlie Wilson but he pleaded with a note that he had health problem, Ms. Clare Lockhart and Ashraf Ghani the next candidate for Afghanistan’s presidency who wrote the book called “Fixing Failed States”, Mr. Ali Jalali also candidate for Afghan presidency and he said it contains vital issues and should be passed to the policy makers, and many others.
So far I had only 1 reply from Ex General and assistant secretary of defense Lawrence Korb and he said he will pass it to the transition team.
I am convinced the plan is workable and it will not only unite the people of Afghanistan it will also curb the recruitment of youth into terrorist training camps.
America will succeed if the plan is implemented responsibly and decisively.
Again, anyone reads this note please make a difference and pass the word on to others that could be heard in the transition team. This is an American solution and I hope someone can see our plan.
Sincerely,
Debater |
|
Qui-Mosahbe
1/16/2009 8:12 PM | Also, the war on low income families by Child Protective Services. |
