Eclectic Floridian: An Alternative to Bush's "War on Terror"

Friday, June 30, 2006

An Alternative to Bush's "War on Terror"

I've been having an email conversation with "Kagro X" over at dKos that keeps coming back to my mind. My previous post on this subject did not seem to drive home my strong feeling that there is a better way handle the "War on Terror". Remember that that "war" was declared by our Decider-In-Chief, not by our Legislature.

Kerry, in 2004, tried to recast terrorism as “simply” a criminal enterprise and that attempt failed. That is not that same as proposing a solution to the problem.

I am not just asserting that terrorism is "only" criminal, I’m proposing a solution.

Yes, the solution requires the acceptance of terrorism as criminal rather than an act of war. But, that is “all” it is, criminal behavior. Terrorism is not about one nation violating another’s territory. It is about the tactics of those who hold certain beliefs.

In scope, terrorism is different, but, in tactics, it is no different than the Mafia.

Just like the Mafia, Terrorism is:

  • ruled by a diverse group of families (leaders)
  • acts across national boundaries
  • violates the laws of most nations
  • instills fear in those confronted by it
  • has an international network of interacting leaders
  • has a support group that finances it

Consider Interpol, an international police network. Imagine if the responsibility for the “War on Terror” were transferred to Interpol, or an organization like it (but devoted to terrorism). Possibly, such an organization could take a form more like an truly international NATO.

If that were to happen:

  • the SWIFT problem would not exist
  • Western Europe (and Russia?) would no longer resist the U.S. because they would be partners in a fight that makes sense to them
  • Other nations would feel comfortable signing on to a truly international effort, thus increasing cooperation on intelligence and enforcement to include [local?] military options)
  • The wind would be removed from the sails of our Decider-In-Chief, that is, "War" powers would no longer be an option for him to rewrite our Constitution
  • The Democratic party (if it adopted this as part of its platform) would be providing a solution to a major source of hatred toward the U.S., that is, providing a solution instead of unilaterally stirring up international trouble
  • Nations would be willing to join an international group that is for their mutual protection from terrorism so long is the U.S. was only another signatory, rather than a unilateral bully.
Am I nuts? Tell me why, or why not. It sure seems logical to me.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

----"The wind would be removed from the sails of our Decider-In-Chief, that is, "War" powers would no longer be an option for him to rewrite our Constitution"------

There is the rub, but for that, the world would be a very different place today.

An old BBC piece makes that point quite solidly.

11/04/2006 11:35 PM  
Blogger CWhite said...

Elections are almost here. Maybe we can take (some) wind out of the Decider's sails.

If the Democratic party would take this bull by the horns, it could help, a lot.

11/06/2006 11:08 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home