You're forgiven if you didn't notice, but the "war on terror" is over. It ended Friday, Feb. 3 of this year, when the Pentagon issued a report that outlined in broad terms America's strategic defense plan for the next 20 years. In it, the old ambiguous standby phrase was dropped in favor of a simpler, more direct term. Welcome to the "Long War."
The "war on terror" now shapes and informs so much of our political decision-making, yet the assumptions that underlie it are almost never questioned, and certainly not by either candidate for the House in Durham's 4th District.
Bear with me when I say something that's been said before, and needs to be said again: The conflict this country is currently engaged in is not now nor has ever been a war. The decimation of the World Trade Center five years ago was mass murder by organized radicals, not a declaration of war by any sovereign state. Terrorism is not a nation, a geographic area, a religion or a political orientation. It's crime.
For five years, our tactics have been as misguided as our terminology. For five years, we've been sending soldiers to do the work of spies, investigators and cops. And we're suffering for it, in a huge variety of ways.
Nothing obscures rational argument like the prospect of young Americans in the line of fire, so let me assure you this is no critique or judgment on our armed forces, its rank-and file or its commanding officers. The U.S. military has performed admirably in the "war on terror," and done precisely what militaries are intended to do: defeat the armies and unseat the ruling powers of other nations, in this case Iraq and Afghanistan. Not surprisingly, the military has had little success in capturing bin Laden, dismantling al Qaeda or replacing Islamic extremism and fascism with burgeoning democracy. This is not the purpose of the military. Nor is it of war.
Fervent cries to "support our troops!" without examining the paradigms that brought our troops to war are worse than meaningless. I do support our troops. That is exactly why I don't want to see them given mandates that they cannot and should not be expected to fulfill. We've already witnessed the ugly consequences of forcing soldiers into the roles of jailers and interrogators in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
The Bush administration's all-or-nothing posturing has left both parties, as well as the U.S. citizenry, with little alternative to this military-centric "war" approach to eliminating international terrorist organizations. Though obviously some military component has been and will continue to be necessary, the reality is that most of the real work is already taking place in law enforcement agencies worldwide.
It's telling that one of the very few publicized al Qaeda plots against the United States since Sept. 11, the conspiracy to destroy the Library Tower in Los Angeles, was foiled through not through military action but cooperation between police and federal agents in the United States and an unnamed South Asian nation.
Organizations like the FBI and CIA already possess the training, resources and methodology for the kind of painstaking criminal investigation required to defuse terror conspiracies. On top of this, U.S. law enforcement agencies can count decades of experience combating the mafia and international drug cartels, organized crime operations that, despite the veneer of Koranic verses and radical politics, share much in common with many al Qaeda outfits. These days, the Taliban is vastly more likely to be smuggling heroin than dirty bombs. Terrorist cells worldwide routinely engage in gun-running, armed robbery, for-profit kidnapping and other criminal activities. The stakes may be higher, but the game remains essentially unchanged.
What does all of this mean for you in the voting booth? To be honest, I have no solid recommendations. As previously mentioned, neither candidate for the House of Representatives in Durham's 4th District seems likely to consider a fundamental shift in the way this country prosecutes its struggle with terrorist organizations, although Rep. David Price, D-Dist. 4 does seem far more flexible on the issue than Steven Acuff, his challenger. All I ask is that you look into each candidate's stance and past history, and bear this issue in mind when you vote.
Treating terrorism as crime and its perpetrators as criminals is a crucial first step toward transforming the "war on terror" into a struggle that's politically, economically and, most of all, morally sustainable. It's been five years. We've been fighting the wrong war for far too long.
Brian Kindle is a Trinity senior. His column runs every Tuesday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.