Re: Terrorism and Unemployment

["Alan G. Isaac" <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Without defending Bush-speak, which has proved painful in so many ways
(did anyone else note just *how* ill-chosen his word ``crusade'' was
in the current context??), I am still puzzled by Ian's position.  He
treats the issue as one of the meaning of `war,' but if that's the
word at issue then his arguments would seem to force him to conclude
that, e.g., there is no such thing as a civil war (and I imagine Ian
steaming at the phrase `cold war').  Surely ordinary usage would allow
for the US to be a state of war with some terrorist organizations,
even if they are not states, and with certain states, even if they
restrict themselves to subterfuges in persuing violent actions against
the US.  So perhaps Ian is really more bothered by the term
``declare.''  (The idea being that war can only be declared in some
formal fashion.)  But again, this seems overly legalistic.  There is a
clear and standard meaning of `declare' that was in use: ``To reveal
or make manifest; show.''  Now I doubt even Ian would deny that some
hostile intent toward the US was manifested on the 11th, and I imagine
he would agree that treating this event as unlikely to be followed by
further efforts against US property and civilians would be both an
absurd optimism and inconsistent with what we know.  So Ian, just what
is the problem here?

The problem I see is entirely different from the issue of redescribing
the state of hostilities between the US and a few thousands of religious
nuts supported by regimes whose rise to power would make people
nostalgic for the days when the US stumbled about the world.  The
problem is evident whenever Bush speaks, for he is so clearly out of
his depth in a time of crisis.  The US cannot afford a C on this exam.
For once I agree with Henry: Colin Powell has been a voice of relative
reason during the past week, and hopefully he will prevail as Bush's
tutor.

Alan Isaac




On Tue, 18 Sep 2001, Ian Murray wrote:
> It is also the case that those who disagree with his interpretation of
> the facts need to do so ever more vigorously in order that his
> assertion that what happened last week is an act of war be shown for
> the ridiculousness it is. No legal State has declared war on the US
> government or it's people[s].

> For Dumbya to say "war has been declared" is classic Orwellian
> doublspeak. When did Afghanistan tell it's people[s] it is engaged in
> a holy war with the US? If it was after Dumbya's assertions and chest
> puffing, then, in effect they are defending themselves; as there is,
> as yet, no verified beyond all possible doubt causal connection
> between those repsonsible for last Tuesday and the policies of the
> Afghanistan government.

> The polysemy of the term *war* is being exploited to Machiavellian
> ends by those in power in the US, proving they have learned nothing
> from last week.