Tuesday, December 27, 2005

"War"? What "war"?


Since so much has been justified recently in the name of the ongoing War on Terror™, it's worth pointing out one small detail: there is no "war." There never has been a "war" since, quite simply, the U.S. Congress never declared one. Q.E.D. The notion of a war on terror is as meaningful as a war on drugs, or poverty, or illiteracy, or whatever. It's not officially a "war" at all.

If you need convincing, I recommend this piece. All this talk about war and a "wartime president" and so on is just so much swill. So, can we all stop using that word? Please?

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to the war on Christmas.

PILING ON: Josh Marshall wades into the same swamp.

2 comments:

Paul Vincent said...

You do realize that "war" was always meant to be an analogous use and not a literal one.... right? When he says "we're at war" and "we're warring" he's referring to an analogous activity similar to as if we were at war or if we were warring. The activities involved in what he is doing is similar to that of a war. There is no appropriate term for what he is doing that can be summarized in a war and so like many people say "God is good" so does the president declare a war on terrorism.

Now if people are too stupid to realize this.... that's their fault.

Joe Mama said...

The term "war" is certainly literal to the thousands of troops sent to Iraq. The appropriate term for what he's doing is "regime change". Iraq had nothing to do with 911 or "the war on terror."