I agree - just like after WW II.
Given the nature of our War on Nouns to date ... just when do you expect to see an "after" to the War on Terrorism?
- Cheney: Terror War Far From Over
- Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday the military defeats inflicted on the Taliban in Afghanistan mark a ``very good beginning'' to the longer-term struggle against terrorism
"Struggle"? Is it war or not? Are these military tribunals for the (innately leftist sounding) "Struggle" or are we going to actually declare a war against an actual enemy?
- Americans Seem Committed to Winning War on Terrorism - favor using combat troops for five years plus
- Following in the vein of the "struggle" ... we have "five year plans" ALSO heartily consented to if the polls are any indication ...
and the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that most Americans appear strongly committed to winning the war on terrorism regardless of the time and consequences involved. Strong majorities of Americans say they are willing to send large numbers of ground troops into Afghanistan and to engage in combat for several years. Almost half say the United States should continue fighting regardless of how many American military personnel are killed. Nearly nine in 10 Americans say they have a clear idea of what this war is ...
- War on terrorism includes fight against poverty (among other things): Powell
- In one of my favorite bits of Collectivist Objective, we have no less than Colin Powell seeking a tie-in of our War on Terrorism to the War on Poverty (the latter which has been ongoing MY ENTIRE LIFE to no particular effect if you discount the MILLIONS we've aborted in order to save the economic burden of having more Americans on the planet)
The war against international terrorism must be fought on many fronts, including reducing poverty and improving health and education, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the Security Council on Monday.
- Senator Byrd Threatens War on Terrorism? (my title)
- I guess the one thing we know for certain -- given passage of the PATRIOT act and items like this -- it's going to cost us plenty in DOLLARS as well as LIBERTIES to fight this War on Terrorism here at home.
Byrd made his own threat to do just that. He said he is going to attach a $20 billion domestic security plan to this year's defense spending bill, a bill the president desperately needs passed to continue a war on terror that is costing the military approximately $1.2 billion per day. "The last train out of the station will be the defense appropriations bill, and so if all else fails then I intend to attempt to put this homeland security bill on the last appropriations bill," Byrd said.
- Rumsfeld: War on terrorism will 'take time'
- Also sounding the note of Perpetuity is Rumsfeld ... a hawk who wants our War on Terrorism prosecuted clearly and unambiguously ... save for actually declaring war against a person or nation, of course.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld defended the pace of the war on terrorism Thursday, reiterating his message that the war "will take time.""In the end, war is not about statistics, deadlines, short attention spans or 24-hour news cycles," he said. "It's about will, the projection of will, the clear, unambiguous determination of the president of the United States -- and let there be no doubt about that -- and the American people to see this through to certain victory."
In case the War on Terrorism doesn't last long enough to excuse permanent measures, there's always the 'next war' for which we're already preparing as we prosecute this one ...
The surprises we will encounter a decade from now will very likely be different from the one that struck us on Sept. 11. ... Yes, we must win the war on terrorism. But as we do so, we must also prepare for the next war. We owe it to our children and grandchildren.
Rumsfeld: Beyond the War on Terrorism
No end in sight. But that's cool because (thanks to the diligence of our partners against terrorism, the Soviets, there's a WORLDWIDE panoply of terrorists on which to wage this war ... economic and other "national interests" guiding our decisions to, say, ignore Ireland and the terrorist they harbor while we pound Third Worlders along the pipelines in the Middle East.
- U.S. officials consider future targets in worldwide war on terrorism
- The war on terrorism is focused on Afghanistan. But already, America is sending military advisers to the Philippines to rout out terrorists. Iraq could become a target if it's linked to any attacks. And the war could carry even farther -- perhaps to Somalia, Chechnya or Sudan, and perhaps quickly -- if Osama bin Laden tried to slip out of Afghanistan. Eventually, the war on terrorism could have a long target list, one that stretches into all corners of the world.
And why not ... when our "War on Terrorism" is actually a police action veiled with selective military engagement in one grand "War Against Hate Crimes"
- The Halfhearted War Against Terrorism Can't Be Won
- The war on terrorism can’t be won in its current form. It is impossible. We are fighting an abstraction. Terror has existed as long as man and my guess is that it will last as long as man does. Listening to some talk about getting the evildoers and eliminating terrorism is as silly as it is sad. We may as well wage war against evil everywhere it surfaces in human nature. Good luck.
Rotsa ruck on reversing ANY Executive Order ... particularly those, like the military tribunals, passed for abridging certain liberties and due process in light of our "war footing".
I make a lot of noise about declaring Wars on Nouns ... this one's different, though, in many terrifying and brutal respects which shall only become clear once we realize the full extent of the "transformation" to which we've given our express consent.
"Terrorism" has been on the table a long, long time. Having increased their spending on terrorism a mere 1,000% in the mid-sixties, the architects of world terror then set about during detente to condition the Western mind to the upsides inherent in combatting the terror they'd set in motion.
Now that we are firmly embarked in the Period of Escalating Violence, it's time to put longheld plans in motion:
| But I raised it in the context, and I don't want to delay all of this, but I raised it in the context -- I came back from a conference on terrorism back in 1980. I was over in, not Berlin, I was in Bonn, and I went to a conference on terrorism and I spoke there, Henry Kissinger was there, Helmut Schmidt was there, and as I came out of the hotel I saw the hotel was surrounded by APCs, armored personnel carriers. And all the soldiers or policemen had automatic weapons. I looked at that and I said, I wonder, would any American city allow VIPs to be protected by virtual tanks in the street? And it had been just after a guy named Schleier, a banker, had been assassinated, stuffed in his trunk of a Mercedes car, so there was real tension over there, and there was some real protection underway. I said no, it will never happen in the United States. Then I said well wait a minute. What happens if the terrorists come to the United States and the bombs start going off, the killing starts here? Would we as the American people, say protect our liberties or protect our lives? We've never had to have that debate at this point. And so when you have an Oklahoma City bombing that's taken place, and you have others who may not be domestic but international, what will be the reaction of the American people? Will they say the government's responsibility is to protect us, and we say absolutely, but how do we do that? Do we do it through the local police? The National Guard? The Guard and Reserve? Or do we call upon the military in extremists to provide protection and to help with what they call consequence management? DefenseLink -- Cohen Breakfast Meeting with Reporters in Washington, D.C. (1/11/2001)
|
They had no intention of debate on the subject when -- as with all major erosions of liberty the last 50 years -- a Crisis could compel the consent of the sheeple.
And there's going to be NO ONE to stop them, for on all the Big Questions (like PNTR for China, Terrorism, Clinton's "by the book" handling of Waco, the "national interests" at stake in Kosovo) ... The Message They're Sending is Essentially the Same Thing/
That's why the likes of Ziggy B. can sit in with Scowcroft and speak in tongues together on how Serbia is "a microcosm of what the world is about to be"
"The world", baby ... don't say you weren't warned.
_________________________
Hey Sit-Rep ... trust all is well and this answers where I'm coming from.
It's never going to be over but -- as so beautifully portrayed in Gilliam's Brazil -- it all becomes rather "normal" after a while.