It's War, Plain and Simple

Fire of Liberty
Jack Kelly has a terrific piece in today's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette which points out that no matter how much talking heads, military and professors continue this academic debate on what we should name our ongoing fight with al Qaeda, the reality is that we're in a generational war with terror. No matter how you look at it, we are really in what Norman World War IV (WE had WWI -1914-1918, WWII -1939-1945, The Cold War(WW III) -1945-1991 - in which the forces of good - the US, Western Society as well as the freedom loving people throughout the world - battle the forces of evil - al Qaeda and fellow Islamic Fascists) - in what is a Global War on Terror. (For more on Podhoretz's argument check out his essay "World War IV: How It Started, What It Means, and Why We Have to Win," in the September 2004 issue of Commentary (Warning: It's real long)). The generals and press can say that this is more that a war of bombs, bullets and guts but all you have to look at what our brave young soldiers in the Marines and the Army face everyday to realize that this is indeed a War not some academic debate. I guess those professors and talking heads need to go on vacation and find out that the folks in Middle America know a war when they see one. I think Kelly put it best in the following paragraphs:

The Army War College intellectuals disdain declaring war on a technique rather than an enemy. But al-Qaida's plummeting popularity in Iraq and in the broader Arab world is due more to the techniques that it is employing -- blowing up large numbers of Arab civilians -- than to its goals. We'd be mighty foolish to stop talking about what Muslims dislike most about our enemies.

And there are problems with alternative formulations. The "struggle against violent extremism" is as imprecise with regard to the identity of with whom we are struggling as is the "war on terror," with the added imprecision of what it will take to beat them. A "struggle" just doesn't seem to be as big a deal as a "war."

Lending precision -- say, the struggle against violent Islamic extremism -- may be helpful in the West, though most of us have already figured that out. But when we say "Islamist," those in the Middle East with whom we want to ally might hear "Islam," and that would not be helpful at all.

Finally, the English word "struggle" translates into Arabic as "jihad." Is it a good idea for us to be endorsing jihad in any context?

We are engaged in a "struggle" we cannot win unless we kill most of those who are trying to kill us. Calling this a war seems appropriate, even if that offends the sensibilities of the Politically Correct.

I just wish there were more people like Jack Kelly in the newsrooms of all the news-stations and national newspapers of this nation.