End of the War on Terror
By Philip Giraldi

It is time to end the war on terror. Governments have always understood that the adroit use of words and phrases to define a problem can limit the options in a policy debate. Congressional resolutions designed to bring about regime change in foreign countries are euphemistically described as establishing "accountability," enhancing human rights, or promoting democracy. In that context, there is no word in the American political lexicon that has been more abused than the word "war." America is constantly at war, both metaphorically and actually. Ironically, when the war is a real one, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is frequently described as something else, enforcement of UN resolutions in the former and a NATO stabilization operation in the latter. As war can only be declared by Congress, which has not done so since 1941, one might reasonably suggest that all the wars that have been waged by various presidents are essentially bogus, at least in constitutional terms.

The constitution aside, Washington engages in a new war every time it wants to demonstrate serious intent. There is a war on drugs, a war on poverty, and, most recently, a war on terror, sometimes made even grander when described as a "global war on terror" or even by the acronym GWOT. As John Edwards once noted, the GWOT is little more than a bumper sticker slogan. It is meant to imply that the government is marshalling all its resources to extirpate evil and force its unconditional surrender. It is also a demand that the citizens fall in line, sacrificing their children and their treasure as well as their constitutional rights as part of the noble endeavor. Nor can there be any debate about causes and consequences when there is a war going on. It is, in short, a blank check for the government to undermine every legal principle and do whatever is needed to win.

The war on terror has been a fiction since the phrase was first articulated by President George W. Bush nine days after 9/11. It was subsequently used to empower the authorities and legitimize the dismantling of the constitution's protections through the various renditions of the Patriot and Military Commissions Acts. The need to "protect America" became the fixture around which the creation of a unitary and unaccountable executive power took place. From the beginning, critics noted that terror has no geographic location, that it is a tactic used by militants who themselves come from many different backgrounds, have various objectives, and who have greater or lesser ability to threaten the United States. Terrorism is not a unified movement backed by a powerful economy like Nazism or communism and, even if every group that employs terror were to somehow unite, they could not threaten to overthrow the legitimate government of any country in the world. Terrorists in the Philippines have little or nothing to do with their counterparts in Iraq beyond a vague philosophical affinity and both can be defeated when local people rise up and say enough, not through the efforts of imperial Washington. Indeed, Washington has more often than not been a negative force with its calls for pre-emptive war, its hidden prisons and torture, all of which has emboldened terrorists groups and motivated new recruits to join their ranks.

And the war on terror as seen by Washington and a complaisant US media is the ultimate money and power machine, requiring a huge military and intelligence commitment that is endless and not confined to any part of the world. As terror has no capital city or national identity the war against it cannot end through capture and surrender. As it is a secret war, it can be waged using unconventional methods, without regard for the deaths of civilians who are seen as "sheltering" the terrorists, guaranteeing that the blood of the innocent will produce new generations raised hating America. The bleeding will continue forever and everywhere as long as there are terrorists, justifying government intrusion into the lives of the citizens at home and huge and unsustainable budgets to wage the war worldwide. It is George Orwell's dark vision of 1984 turned into reality. Tyranny and bankruptcy will be the war on terror's legacy.

To right the evils of the past eight years and reverse the policies that have been so counterproductive, it is time for the new administration in Washington to declare that it will no longer use the expression war on terror and that the war itself, as a concept, is over. Afghanistan should no longer be called the "central front in the war on terror," a meaningless expression that is little more than shorthand for the lack of any serious US policy in the central Asian region. As the "central front" was reported to be in Iraq two years ago it apparently has moved, but the expression itself is little more than a slogan to explain why 70,000 US troops are needed to fight in yet another conflict that quite possibly cannot be won in any conventional sense.

Changing the mindset that shapes the perception of terrorism will not be easy after years of almost ritualistic calls to war, but it can be done. In July 2007 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown instructed his government ministers to stop using the expression war on terror. His new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith made the British position very clear, saying "Terrorists are criminals, whose victims come from all walks of life, communities and religions." Since that time, the British government has not referred to its actions to identify and arrest terrorists as a war and also has not reflexively linked terrorism to Muslims, reasoning that declarations of war directed against one community, frequently unfairly, can never be helpful. Britain has never used the odious expression "Islamofascists" which has been popularized by neoconservatives in the United States and was briefly adopted by the Bush Administration. The British Prime Minister has made it clear who exactly the terrorists are — criminals who are not supported by any government on earth and who eventually will lose, as all criminals do. The United States should follow his example.