Regarding the USA’s “War on Terror”

[99th_Monkey]

Regarding the USA’s “War on Terror”, it is high time to start calling it what it is:

A) A “cover” for conducting a perpetual imperialistic military crusade to impose US hegemony on the rest of the world to insure the US’s ability to economically exploit the environmental and human resources any given nation at any such time as the US chooses to do so,

B) An excuse for repressing, criminalizing and obliterating, at will, any meaningful domestic dissent of “the people” that in any way seriously challenges the private interests of our monied corporate oligarchy.

C) A way of keeping the shadowy “military/industrial/prison complex” in absolute control -- yes, that very same $editiou$ Franken$tein that Ike & JFK tried to warn us about -- not only of US foreign policy, but also our domestic policy and fiscal policies as well. In short, the whole ball of wax.

Why anyone spends one more precious minute pretending that this hideous “war on terror” charade is anything other than a deadly cancer on the body politic is utterly beyond me. The so-called "War on Drugs" is similarly an inordinately cruel and repressive force wielded by minions of The Dark $ide, for profit and unfettered power. This is just how near-boiling the water is, in our little proverbial frog pond.

I don’t know exactly what the answer to all this is, but I'd like to think Team Obama has "got this". I fervently hope that our President is discretely moving in very incremental steps to restore the same kind of sanity and humanity to our public life that JFK, FDR, MLK, RFK, et. al lived and died for; but I’m not exactly holding my breath either, in light of Obama’s drone policy, kill lists, NDAA, Gitmo, Bradley Manning, etc.

The irony is, even if Obama IS doing what I am hoping, he wouldn’t be able to come out and say it publicly. He would have to pretend to be doing otherwise, to be Mr. Macho WinsWarOnTerror -- until a sudden and sure moment of truth, where there is a sea change, before a shot is fired on anyone ... rather like the Smedley Butler incident. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

I honestly and whole-heartedly wish Obama and Biden et. al. all the best, and I do support them because that's who I voted for, that's who we elected; but also feel strongly about this being THE opportunity to put a halt to these two tragically misguided "Wars on ...". Instead, let's wage peace, and bring our "nation-building" home, rebuild our infrastructure, support education, health-care for all, etc. rather than piss away our precious resources waging deadly perpetual counter-productive "Wars".

What a crazy f*cking world we live in.

[Scabby57]

1. We Own The World And Everything In It

Wait Those Were Tony Montana's Words

[Mr.Bill]

2. You can't have a "War on Terror".

Terror is not an enemy, it is a tactic. It's like saying you are waging a "War against Ambush".

[dchill]

3. Correct. There has never been a "War on Terror."

It was a war against our freedoms.

[99th_Monkey]

4. Actually to his credit, Obama is making some substantial adjustments in the public rhetoric

This is huge actually. I may revise OP with it; or better yet, create a new OP
with it, as I just discovered it. .. next he'll be aquitting Bradley Manning and
ditching his drone program. I'm staying tuned.


For the First Time, Obama Official Sketches Out End to War on Terror
BY SPENCER ACKERMAN11.30.1212:00 P

"Neither the George W. Bush nor Barack Obama White House ever laid out a vision for what an end to the war on terrorism would actually look like. But as Obama prepares for his second term in office, one of his top defense officials is arguing that there is an end in sight, and laying out conditions for when the U.S. will reach it.

“On the present course, there will come a tipping point,” Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon’s top lawyer, told the Oxford Union in the U.K. on Friday, “a tipping point at which so many of the leaders and operatives of al-Qaida and its affiliates have been killed or captured, and the group is no longer able to attempt or launch a strategic attack against the United States, such that al-Qaida as we know it, the organization that our Congress authorized the military to pursue in 2001, has been effectively destroyed.” At that point, “our efforts should no longer be considered an armed conflict.”

Johnson’s description of the endgame raises more questions than answers. But under his formulation, the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF), which the Obama administration has cited as the foundation of its wartime powers, would expire. That would mean any detainee at Guantanamo Bay who hasn’t been charged with a crime would be free to go, although Johnson says that wouldn’t necessarily happen immediately. It would also raise questions about whether the U.S. would possess residual legal authorities for its lethal drone program — which Johnson defended to the BBC on Thursday — including the legal basis for any “postwar” drone strike the CIA might perform.

In Johnson’s view, once al-Qaida’s ability to launch a strategic attack is gone, so too is the war. What will remain is a “counterterrorism effort” against the “individuals who are the scattered remnants” of the organization or even unaffiliated terrorists. “The law enforcement and intelligence resources of our government are principally responsible” for dealing with them, Johnson said, according to the text of his speech, with “military assets in reserve” for an imminent threat.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/11/jeh-johnson-terrorism/