CON GAMES: It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like War

November 21st, 2006 at 07:52am Michael Conniff 2

I love a good war.

No--that's not exactly true. War is hell. War--huh--what is it good for?

Absolutely nothing.

Say it again.

But that's not true, either. One thing war is good for is to take any problem and render in unitelligible.

Say what?

The War on Poverty. Check. The War on Drugs. Check. The War on Terror. Double-check.

And now we're swinging into my personal favorite: the War on Christmas.

Culture boy-toy Bill O'Reilly and the ejaculatory pundits of the right have identified the obliteration of Christmas in a secular world as the #1 real problem we should be worried about. Not poverty, drugs, corruption, immigration, or Iraq--the Tighty Righties say the fate of Christmas is far more important to the survival of the greatest country in the world.

Preach your children well, as Cat Stevens might say if he weren't a Muslim.

Now I know I'm getting a jumpstart on this particular war. I know the Thanksgiving turkey is nowhere near the groaning board , and I know (thank God!) that the incessant chimes of commercialism are only starting to get their bell rung.

But I can see it coming clear as the mistletoe upside your head. The Tighty Righties, hoisted by their own petard in the election just past, are really hurting for really important things to get outraged about. Number one on this list of mist is the phrase "Happy Holidays." Say it at your own risk this year, because The Tighties will come down on you like a brick house. Say "Merry Christmas" and you're in the clear, because--hello!--"Christ" is right there in Christmas like somebody planned it that way. "Happy Holidays" means you have no values and need a conservative to put a good whupping on you with some of that religious waterboarding they treat like Holy Water. Wish anyone a holiday that includes happiness and you have simply gone over the thin bluenose line.

Forewarned is forearmed: let happy holiday foreplay begin! Give your friends the gift of outrage this Christmas while there's still time.

Entry Filed under: Politics, Con Games, Aspen, Foreign Policy

4 Comments Add your own

1. Mitch.Mulhall | November 21st, 2006 at 11:55 am

In today’s radio show, you posed the idea that putting the word “war” before any term is dangerous. In drawing this conclusion, you postulated that we should limit the definition of war to a conflict between two states. In fact, I recall you saying that if you could get people to “drink your kool-aide,” you would have them accept this narrow construction of the term.

I realize there are those who contend al Qaeda did not plan and execute 9/11. I am not one of them. I hold that al Qaeda—an armed Islamist organization (principally Wahhabists and Salafists) with the stated objective of eliminating foreign influence in Muslim countries, eradicating those they deem to be “infidels,” and reestablishing a Caliphate—committed 9/11.

While Osama bin Laden is said to be the central figure of al Qaeda, the terrorist group is not an “organization” in the sense of having central direction and coordination. More importantly to my point is the fact that one of the most distinctive characteristics of al-Qaeda is that it does not affiliate itself with nor represent any state, country, or government.

Hence, by suggesting the term “war” be narrowly construed to mean an armed conflict between two states, you eliminate the U.S. right to retaliate militarily against al Qaeda.

Since war should be off-the-table where al Qaeda is concerned, surely you have a superior solution in mind. Please share.

Cheers,
2. alpha6 | November 21st, 2006 at 1:04 pm

"War is a continuation of `policy'—or of `politics'—by other means." Carl von Clausewitz

Our use of "War" as in the War on terrorism, the war on drugs, etc. is utilized under the pretense of this definition. However, if you are a study of Von Clausewitz's "ON WAR" you will see that a limited war or a war fought with a political agenda allowing politics to govern tactics will ultimately lead to failure. This is evidenced in the tactical display that we have seen in Iraq. With no clear military objectives, there is no war in the pure sense of battle and only in the definition of an extension of government policy, which as of this last election has been shown to be in contrast to the will of the people.

War is complicated, and if defined as simply politics, leads to failures that have been proven out again and again throughout history.

There is no "war" on terror, drugs, poverty, or Christmas, only an extension of policy ...be it government or special interest group.
3. Mitch.Mulhall | November 21st, 2006 at 1:57 pm

Clausewitz's famous line, “War is merely a continuation of [“Polotik”] by other means,” should not be construed as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument in which the thesis is "war is nothing but a “Zweikampf” ("duel" or "joust") on a larger scale.” Clausewitz’s synthesis is war is neither an act of brute force nor a rational act of politics or policy.

Michael’s narrow definition of “war” suggests Clausewitz's philosophy—that states wage wars using armies to pursue political objectives—does not apply to a stateless enemy like al Qaeda.

All I’m asking is, if war doesn’t apply, what does?

Cheers,
4. Steel Turman | November 21st, 2006 at 11:36 pm

...outrage this Christmas ...?

The outrage is that you don't understand the nature of man or war.

This life is worth fighting for, and if you are unable, unwilling or incapable of doing so, then you need to STFU.

Let the adults deal with reality.

You?

The best thing you could do is to allow them.

The worst thing you could is to stop them.

The thing you will most likely do is nothing.