05 September 2006
A “war” by another name
3:35 PM
Sometimes problems are caused by how certain words are employed. Listening to Democrats talk about the War on Terror like a law enforcement issue (what with their wanting to try terrorist comabatants as if they were criminals) one can see how terminology plays a part.
Part of the problem with our War on Terror is the title itself. If you think about two of our other “Wars on…” you might see the difficulty that some have in conceiving of how to fight the War on Terror. Our two other wars are the “War on Poverty” and the “War on Drugs.”
Think about how those two “wars” are being fought, and have been fought. It isn’t too difficult to see how Democrats, among others, can conceive of the War on Terror as a law enforcement matter, just like the “wars” on drugs and poverty.
That, of course, doesn’t make them correct. Those two other “wars” shouldn’t have been called “wars” in the first place. And the fact that they have been should have no bearing on how the War on Terror is fought anyway.
I doubt that Democrats are alter their own “tactics.” But of course that just raises the question why I wrote this in the first place.
It’s plot exposition: it has to come out sometime.
Part of the problem with our War on Terror is the title itself. If you think about two of our other “Wars on…” you might see the difficulty that some have in conceiving of how to fight the War on Terror. Our two other wars are the “War on Poverty” and the “War on Drugs.”
Think about how those two “wars” are being fought, and have been fought. It isn’t too difficult to see how Democrats, among others, can conceive of the War on Terror as a law enforcement matter, just like the “wars” on drugs and poverty.
That, of course, doesn’t make them correct. Those two other “wars” shouldn’t have been called “wars” in the first place. And the fact that they have been should have no bearing on how the War on Terror is fought anyway.
I doubt that Democrats are alter their own “tactics.” But of course that just raises the question why I wrote this in the first place.
It’s plot exposition: it has to come out sometime.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
About Me
- James Frank Solís
- Former soldier (USA). Graduate-level educated. Married 26 years. Texas ex-patriate. Ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(300)
-
▼
September
(33)
- Proclaim liberty throughout the land
- Partying with Lileks? Could be fun.
- Inconsistency, thy name is ‘Liberal’
- Yoda and Han Solo: a deep thought
- Are executive compensation packages too high? (1)
- The Wallace-Clinton interview; a post script
- A paradoxical necessity of the Iraqi theater
- Clinton on Fox. Or was it the other way around?
- Joseph Ratzinger: a serious opponent in a continen...
- What Chavez and Ahmadinejad both understand about ...
- Which Narnia character am I?
- Maybe it’s more like ‘jobs Americans can’t get to ...
- What’s wrong with Common Article 3
- Attention angry (and ignorant!) Muslims: The Pope ...
- Oh, I get it: The Geneva Conventions are a suicide...
- Yes. Let’s rob Muslims of their case against us. (2)
- The Path from 911
- Five years after
- Really, just why do nations rise and fall?
- The ‘conservative’ stereotype and climate change: ...
- Ignoring the Constitution? What Constitution?
- Victor David Hanson on The Good Life
- This is what happens when fools play at wisdom
- More about those ‘jobs Americans won’t do’
- Here’s how Katie should close her evening broadcast
- A “war” by another name
- Yes. Let’s rob Muslims of much of their case agai...
- Forget the cup. Enjoy the coffee
- Can we please stop the 'final throes' nonsense?
- The next change here at Deviant Scholar
- As 11 September approaches, let's recall another d...
- Apparently, the problem with our education system ...
- The First Amendment's 'religion clause' limits rel...
-
▼
September
(33)
0 comments: