You Call This a
War?
The
London terror bombings make one thing clear:
the United States and the United Kingdom are never going to win the
war on
terrorism. The
reason is simple: it isnt
really a war. And nobody can win or lose it.
We should stop talking about it as
if it were a war. Its a clash of wills. The enemy is obscure, but
cant be fought or defeated as if he were a state. He has no vital
secrets or single mastermind that can be found by, say, taking, questioning,
and torturing captives.
He, in fact, is a
loose federation, not a centralized power. His numbers arent huge,
but he has millions of sympathizers who share his hatred of us. He has no
ambition to conquer us or destroy our freedoms; such talk is foolish.
Democracy, if thats what you want to call it,
isnt at stake. The enemy merely wants to harass and shock us until
we stop irritating him.
And our government has no
intention of doing that. It will keep doing what it does, and he will keep
retaliating. This will go on indefinitely, since neither side can force the other
to do what it wants. What costs can random acts of terrorism against a few
civilians impose on the politicians who make the decisions? Dont such
acts in fact reward and encourage them?
What incentive could cause
President Bush to change his course? Every new terrorist act fortifies his
determination not to change. Nothing he does gives the enemy any reason to
change, either. He even profits by the stalemate. From his point of view, the
Iraq war isnt futile.
For a time it appeared that Prime
Minister Tony Blair might suffer political damage for supporting the war. But
he survived his last election easily, winning by a larger margin than Bush did
last November.
![[Breaker quote for You Call This a War?: Why nobody wins]](2005breakers/050712.gif) Does
Bush feel the same frustration most of us feel? Somewhat,
probably; but not enough to make him reconsider. He is a patient, stubborn
man, but not the sort of creative thinker whose mentality is disturbed when
reality doesnt yield to his will. What am I doing wrong?
isnt the kind of question he asks himself.
Because he thinks of himself as
engaged in war, he is content with old lessons of war he
learned as a youth. For him this is World War II all over again, and his role is
to act like the heroes of that war, Roosevelt and Churchill.
The same is probably true, more
or less, of the enemy. He can wait. If his occasional strikes kill innocent
people and cause an uproar, he has his reward; his conscience has long since
ceased to bother him. He isnt trying to convert Bush,
and he no longer cares, if he ever really did, whether the Western public
changes either.
Both sides are adapting to a new
way of life, in which neither victory nor defeat is a prospect. Each has made
its arrangements and alliances; there is no turning back. The rest of us may
as well come to terms with it, since, as James Burnham used to say, when
theres no solution, theres no problem. This is just the way
were going to live from now on.
Expensive security
measures, most of them useless, will be a permanent feature of our lives
and economies, like the huge military budgets of the Cold War. We are still
paying hundreds of billions in taxes for weapons systems we never needed;
more to the point, we pay most of the money for military salaries and
pensions that have become an ineradicable part of modern existence, like a
second welfare state.
Do you get a regular check from
the government? If not, you may be missing the point of the whole thing.
Government programs ostensibly begin with the purpose of
protecting us from something poverty, old age,
deadly enemies, carcinogens in the water and air. But our
protectors keep on getting paid long after any danger has
passed.
What starts as a means eventually
becomes an end in itself. What we thought was only a specific emergency
measure turns out to be a whole way of life. Some very brainy people never
catch on to this.
Joseph Sobran
|