Let's beat "violent extremism" to a bloody pulp

I have long been a critic of the very concept of the "war on terror" because, amongst other reasons, I think have a war against "the terrorists" is a recipe for war without any end till those in charge say it is over because they want it to be over. My complaints may have been loud as I often screamed them when I did not think anyone else could hear them, but they always seemed to go unnoticed by those in positions of influence and power, as well as amongst the general population.

Until now, that is. Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker report in a New York Times story dated July 25 that "the global war on terror" is being relabeled by Team Bush as "a global struggle against violent extremism."

The primary basis for this article is a speech that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Richard "Colombia is a staunch U.S. ally in the war on terrorism" Meyers gave at the National Press Club yesterday. The transcript isn't up on the JCS page for Meyers' transcripts, so here is the account from Schmitt and Shanker

...Myers... 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 extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

Yes! Finally we have a struggle with a clear enemy that can be won! It will be a difficult fight no doubt, but victory without utopia is plausible. My faith in the ability of one person to be correct and get change done in this country, the greatest of even the most greatest countries ever to have existed in the entire universe, is restored, and, if I must say so, and I must, Saturday's "We are beating the terrorists!" entry looks pretty brilliant right now, although less and less so the more I think about it.

For the record, I do indeed believe everything that I have written above in this entry and I certainly do not believe that this change is so small and inconsequential that it almost seems strange that Team Bush would even make it since the change will only draw attention to the idiocy of the concept and the lack of clear definitions, or it would if people bothered to think about it.

While this is wonderful news and makes today truly great day in the history of humanity as well as rocks, water and most land formations, it is true that the name change will make little difference Afghans who are sick of having Afghanistan occupied by the United States or the Iraqi civilians increasingly being killed by Uncle Sam (Richard C. Paddock, Los Angeles Times, July 25), but those people haven't ever mattered so there's no need to start caring now.

Comments

[Hugo Zoom]

I too hate violent extremism. It's really, really bad.

[micah holmquist]

I blame Goldwater.