Rachel Maddow
accurately notes, on her TV show, that wars need to be finite. If war persists,
Maddow said, “…our country is killing people and locking them up outside the
traditional judicial system in a way I think we maybe cannot be forgiven
for." Opinion writer Glenn
Greenwald agrees with Maddow’s observation, which becomes the theme in his
recent editorial.
 |
| Glenn Greenwald |
However,
according to Greenwald, the Obama administration does not believe, like
many people, that the War on Terror needs to end. In fact, the Obama
administration has plans to continue this war for another 10 years if not longer. And this is
only one of the many moves the Obama administration has employed to extend the
war. Other ventures include renewing the Patriot Act and plotting to relocate
Guantanamo to Illinois.
It begs the
question should we ever have started a War on Terror? Will we even be able to
win? And what does win mean? Will Obama use drones to kill every terrorist on
the planet? It that even possible?
Clearly the War
on Terror poses many complex questions. However, the most complex question it
raises, and a question Greenwald refuses to acknowledge in his op-ed, is which
War on Terror are we talking about. There are two Wars on Terror. The first is
the War on Terror that involves nation building in the Middle East. This provided one of the reasons for the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The
other war is the more commonly understood war, fighting to stop terrorists and
to bring an end to terrorist groups like al-Qaeda. If Greenwald discussed this
question many gaps in his argument could have been filled. However he did not
so with that important point noted let’s continue with his argument.
Greenwald makes
the case that U.S. policies employed in the war in Afghanistan are creating
the very terrorists that the U.S. is fighting to stop. Referring to a similar
situation in Yemen, Greenwald determines that the war will continue indefinitely.
With great certainty, Greenwald claims that U.S. officials have no desire to end
the War on Terror because he believes the U.S. is getting something from the
war like limitless power and massive profit. Massive profit? This raises a read
flag. If the war in Afghanistan is creating massive profit why is the United
States national debt so high?
Regardless, of
the numerous questions Greenwald’s agreement raises, it is fair to say that
Greenwald firmly believes that the War on Terror will not end any time soon, and
that the U.S. government will do whatever it takes to farther fuel the
war.
Based on a Fareed
Zakaria op-ed, Rachel Maddow's observations and Greenwald's editorial it appears that that among the liberal media there seems to be a consensus
that the War on Terror needs to end. Both editorials and Maddow agree that 11 years of
wartime powers is enough.
 |
| Fareed Zakaria |
Zakaria notes
that it is time to conduct anti-terrorism campaigns under a more normal and legal framework. He strengthens his claim by citing excerpts from a
speech that the outgoing general counsel for the Pentagon, Jeh Johnson, gave.
In his speech, he argues that abandoning the wartime powers should be something
both sides of the aisle can agree on. However even if that is not the case,
Zakaria remarks that Obama on his own can start preparing and planning for the
end of the War on Terror.
Zakaria makes an
interesting point when he talks about involving Congress in more anti-terrorism
decisions such as drone strikes. Obama claims he wants to take the high road
and compromise. However when it comes to the War on Terror he has been unable
to involve the Republicans. Wartime powers have allowed him to sidestep
Congress.
No comments:
Post a Comment