What does it mean for us to be at war against terrorism? I think there's only one war this is comparable to, and that's the war on drugs. You know, the one that we've been fighting since 1972, that costs us about $40 billion a year. Again, we've got an enemy that is not a nation-state, that has global reach, that has the tacit support of several governments, that's well financed, etc. It's not really a war in any traditional sense. More of a metaphor that justifies massive expenditures, erosions on civil liberties, jailing citizens, etc. And that's what I fear with our current war -- that it will become a war on ourselves, and a war without end. I don't doubt that we will take justified action against guilty parties, that some mix of justice and revenge will be meted out by our forces. But, like the war on drugs, we're going to go after the suppliers, and ignore the demand side. What I mean is, even if we take out bin Laden et al., there will still be a "demand" for terrorism, and other terrorists will follow in his wake. Just as you can't keep drugs away from an addict, you can't prevent a determined fanatic from killing people. This demand is fueled by hatred. And what's at the root of this hatred? Is it really democracy? Our loose culture? Or our foreign policy? If it's either of the first two, well then I suppose we will always be hated. But, if it's the latter, is there a way to get to the root causes? What would that mean? I don't have the answers to these questions at all. I wish I did.
| War | Civil Liberties | Terrorism | War on Terror | War on Drugs |
