The 'So-Called War on Terror'

I saw glimpses of former President Bill Clinton's loss of verve and nerve with one Chris Wallace of Fox News on television last night.

No doubt, one can surmise and imagine the divisive partisan drivel that followed this tense encounter. Regardless, Clinton took issue with the interviewer's line of questioning (or insinuation) about his failure to capture (or kill) Osama Bin Laden. My apolitical wife, in all her fondness for all things political, looked at me and said "is this true what the journalist is saying?"

The answer is of course far more complex. The reality is that successive President's turned a blind eye (or swept under the rug) to terrorism that had been growing in power and stature since the the early 1970s. In expansive form, the Western world at large did not want to confront a violent form of political tactics choosing instead to appease it for multiple reasons.

From an American perspective, foreign policy directives and policies were designed and implemented within a Cold War context. Everything was about the Soviet Union and its own designs on the world. Both used proxy wars to indirectly fight one another. Once pawns in a larger game, nouveau terrorists slowly began to exercise their new found effectiveness of spoiling big power politics. They were no longer pawns but rooks and knights.

Collectively, the West allowed this to happen. Even if we recognized it we would have possibly been unwilling to take the necessary steps to fight it. I'll allow myself some leeway here in discussing liberals regarding terrorism.

In a time where intellectual indiscretions are permitted (just look at Hollywood whenever it deals with historical figures and events), liberals have a love-hate relationship with facts and history.

Terrorism is the perfect subject. Unwilling to fully accept that terrorism is a social and religious phenomena which is capable of acting independently of foreign policy initiatives, they would much rather treat the problem as a product of American political spinning or past abuses. We insist on applying our secular lenses when rationalizing the degree of threat terrorism actually and potentially represents. This is why, it can be argued, many letters to the editors insert the 'so-called war on terror' clause.

There's a problem with this outlook. What happens if (and possibly when) this comfortable notion becomes impractical?

Engaging liberals will consult history. Maybe some may even do the unthinkable and look to religion and theology as a source of comfort.

When push comes to shove liberals will 'consult' history on their terms. 9/11 was a shove. They have erroneously concluded that the United States never 'dealt' with the terrorist problem. Worse, they realize that America, if anything, contributed to it. This logic, taken to its worse end, invites the notion of America being a rogue state.

Liberals operate in a sophist-type circular logical scheme that is short-circuiting. Not content to deal with something in the present they come back to the past with cynical furor to predict the future. Conservatives, for their part, are usually more at ease with history for some reason. When it comes to thoughtful and engaging pieces about society in general, conservative magazines and writers have the clear upper-hand.

I tend to read both sides but few liberal publications present a good read these days. Partly because they not only believe they are in the right but that they are suddenly cultural and political victims. A sense of paranoia fills their rhetorical positions.

To me, Bill Clinton was less an effective political leader in the classical sense and more of a cultural persona. He spoke with a clever eloquence that blended well with the social climate which existed during his tenure. Some call it being superficial or trendy. One can not discount his intellect, what they can dismiss is his substance.

The jury is out on George Bush. For now, he is Clinton's Lex Luthor. If history were to judge Bush now, it would claim him to be a President that did not deviate too much from established American foreign policy directives and doctrines.

To some, and not without validity, he gains points for identifying a problem, taking the initiative (however questionable or dubious its design and execution) to combat it and ignoring the prevailing contemporary political paralysis that gripped world leaders and intellectuals. In other words, he took a stand.

How Iraq and Afghanistan turn out will determine if he enters the pantheon of great Presidents.

The bigger picture is this: Is the West prepared to drop the 'so-called' moniker?