Bill O'Reilly's asked this before, and I guess is not happy that it's come up in a new Meryl Streep film.
The obvious answer to the question "Do you want to win the war on terror" is of course, a "hell yes!" But it is easy to forget that the "war on terror" is a marketing term, a way of understanding a specific problem and the multi-pronged approach we take to solving it through law enforcement, diplomacy, peace keeping, and yes, if needed military action.
It is an easy motherhood issue to say "Yes" to something as innocuous as, "Do you want to win the war on terror?" But the O'Reillys of the world want something more: they want affirmation and approval of the current government approach to it; acting as an agent of the current political status quo, this question is designed to solicit approval and endorsement of the current strategy the government uses to counter terrorism.
And no, I'm not prepared to fully give that; neither am I fully prepared to withhold it. I decide for myself, based on common sense and reason, what I think are the supportable techniques to be used against terrorism.
I can even itemize it as a shopping list:
For:
- NATO, US, and Canadian forces in Afghanistan - this, after all, is the country where the terrorists were, and where their state sponsors are still fighting to regain power.
- Increased funding for CSIS, RCMP, and National Defence, as well as emergency preparedness programs.
- Security Certificates, at least as currently designed: far too arbitrary for my tastes, too easily allows non-Canadians to be subject to unlimited detention at the arbitrary whims of non-judicial officials.
- Any involvement in Iraq.
But suffice it to say that I disapprove of meaningless generalities designed to coopt broad approval for a specific party or ideology's politics. And I'm sick of ideologies, and I am tired of politics, to tell you the truth. Do I want to lose the war on terror? No. Do I want you to ask me inane questions designed to make specific political brands look good? Also no.
We'd all do better discussing the details, and not "gotcha" litmus tests.
No comments:
Post a Comment