So, Just Who are We Fighting, Anyways? 20 September 2001 War involves giving the government unlimited power to exercise force against a designated enemy in the pursuit of a defined goal. Back in 1941, everyone knew exactly what "Japan" and "the Axis" were; they were clear, unambiguous, sharply-defined categories. The goal, of course, was to conquer these enemies and to reconstruct them so that they would no longer pose a threat to the rest of the world they wanted to enslave. Exactly what is meant by "terrorism" has yet to be precisely defined by anyone calling a for a war on it. In recent years, the label has been applied rather broadly, even to acts that are property crimes instead of violent ones (such as the actions of the "black bloc" groups at anti-globalization protests). "Terrorism" is defined in my dictionary as "the systematic use of [violence or intense fear] especially as a means of coercion". By that measure, terrorism appears to be part of the human condition: I cannot think of a period of history where human society was free from it. So, absent further clarification, "war on terrorism" essentially means "giving the government unlimited power to exercise force against anyone it wants to, for an indefinite period of time, and with no end condition specified". This creeps me out. I can certainly understand why Ms. Lee felt compelled to cast the lone "no" vote on the recent emergency legislation. Think I'm being paranoid? Then let's take a look at the Bush Administration's attempts to explain it. First, some excerpts from the press conference of Tuesday, 18 September 2001. From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010918-5.html: [...] Q On the scope of this response to these attacks, while the immediate focus is on these perpetrators, all administration officials have said is it's to eliminate the scourge of terrorism around the world. There's terrorism in Ireland, Colombia, the Philippines, Russia. Is that what the administration is after? MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made it clear that this will be broad and this will be sweeping, and that anybody who is part of the worldwide network that exists to foster terrorism anywhere will be included in this. Make no mistake: That is the charge that the President has set. Q Does he believe it's all linked to one network? MR. FLEISCHER: Wherever it is. That will be the actions the President takes. [...] Q Ari, I just want to make it clear when we asked before about the President's statements about eradicating terrorism around the world, how -- and not being specific to Osama bin Laden and his organization -- how do we then work with Iran, which there's been talk of doing in spite of the fact that they harbor terrorists and fund Hezbollah? I mean, do we make their cooperation contingent upon serving Hezbollah to us? MR. FLEISCHER: I think it's going to be a very complicated matter. With different states it's going to be more complicated. And I think the basic approach that we can look at is -- as I indicated yesterday, some nations are going to be able to do more, some nations are going to be able to do an awful lot. Other nations may be only able to do a little. But if that little is constructive, that little will proceed. The approach of the government will involve both a carrot and a stick. And in different nations, the carrot may be bigger, in other nations the stick may be bigger. Q Ari, isn't it likely that in order to get Iran's cooperation, we would have to essentially give them implicit, if not explicit, promise that we're not going to go after their own operations? MR. FLEISCHER: I think it all depends on what the definition of cooperation is by various nations around the world. And that's why I indicated it's a complicated measure. There will be different actions taken with different governments. And I'm not going to say specifically what it would be with Iran, but -- [...] Q Thank you, Ari. On the international terrorism, I understand the President wants to change international tolerance for terrorism, but you listed a disparate group of terrorists in Northern Ireland, everyplace else. Does the President have any proof that these different terrorist groups are linked together in any way? MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the al Qaeda organization is present in, as you've heard from the President, more than 60 countries, and its links are -- its links are amorphous, and that's one of the ways that terrorism has so successfully operated around the world. It's hard to tell where one group begins and another group ends often. But the President is making clear that as he approaches this, he's approaching it from a very broad and total sense. I think it's his judgment and the judgment of the planners that is the way to be most effective. Q Are you leaving the impression that this campaign against terrorism will be against the IRA as well as all of these -- I mean, it's going to be that massive? This is what you're telling us. MR. FLEISCHER: The President has indicated he will go after terrorism wherever terrorism threatens the United States. And -- Q Oh, threatens the United States. Q I'll yield the floor to Ron. Q Actually, I wanted to follow up on that and then ask you something else. Have you just now declared war on the IRA? MR. FLEISCHER: I said that the links for one group begins and the other group ends are often amorphous, and the President has said we will go after terrorism in a way that is most effective. Q But we only go to war against terrorist groups that threaten the United States? Was that a distinction you intended to make? MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. And now, some excerpts from the conference on the 19th. From http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010919-7.html: [...] Q When you say it has to be done right, are you talking about going after the one person? And do we contemplate any change in our foreign policy that might have contributed to this? MR. FLEISCHER: The President has said this is much bigger than any one person. This deals with all terrorist networks that contribute to this form of terrorism, and to those who harbor terrorism. The President has said that he sees in this an opportunity to do something for the next generations, so that people will not have to suffer these terrorist attacks that culminated in the attack on the World Trade Center. [...] Q All right, let me ask you this. On the scope of this global effort, you said yesterday, first, that it was against terrorism generally. Then you said against terrorist organizations that pose a direct threat to America. A moment ago you said, seeking out a campaign against a people, terrorism that affects people. Is it still the administration's position that this is only a campaign against organizations that pose a direct threat to America? MR. FLEISCHER: It is all of that. And that is why the President has indicated that in this new war of the 21st century against terrorism, the United States, in concert with our allies and coalition partners, will target terrorism and those who harbor terrorists. Terrorism presents a threat to people who love freedom and democracy throughout the world. And that was what I added to my statement yesterday, if you recall. Q But is it a coalition against terrorism activity in, for example, Spain or Ireland or India? MR. FLEISCHER: We talked about this yesterday. This is a worldwide attempt to combat terrorism, where terrorism threatens people who cherish freedom, and where terrorism is a threat to ourselves and to our allies and to our friends. [...] Q One Irish question and one British question, please. There were some references made by the IRA yesterday. Does the administration believe that one side of that conflict is more guilty than the other? Does the administration believe that the IRA is a terrorist group, or the new IRA, or the Real IRA? MR. FLEISCHER: Certainly, the Real IRA is listed on the official list of terrorist groups. But I think the President said what he said for a reason. He is sending a message and he's rallying a coalition, that those who engage in terrorism and those who harbor terrorists need to be worried about the actions that our government will take. Q Is one side in that conflict more guilty than the other? Is one more of a terrorist group than the other? MR. FLEISCHER: I don't look at it in a linear fashion.