Subject:
|
Re: Special Identification for Arab Americans?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 25 Sep 2001 20:46:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
239 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> > I'm also concerned that people
> > think this is a *real* war--11 September's attacks were criminal,
> > they were murderous and evil, but calling them "war" is a
> > measure designed to justify an exaggerated military response
> > both internally and externally.
>
> Well I've just come off (or maybe still am in) a huge row with ROSCO about
> semantics around "pacifist" (I still don't get what point he is trying to
> make) so maybe this is semantics but I am not sure I understand.
It *is* semantics. But it's very important semantics. When
you hear "war" today, do you think most Americans instantly
think "Oh, war. Tripoli, 1801-1805. Of course." Or do they
think WWII, Vietnam, or the Gulf? I'd bet dollars to donuts
people identify the signifier "war" with the more recent cases.
Whether or not *we* analyze it more effectively isn't relevant,
unless we can convince others of our view.
> Why isn't this a war? Does a war have to be with a country? bin Laden
> declared war on *us* explicitly. We had a war with the Barbary Pirates, they
> weren't a country.
The Tripolitan War was, in fact, against a ruler with territory,
an Ottoman supplicant named the Pasha of Tripoli. The US had a fixed
tribute by treaty which supposedly rendered US vessels exempt from
the depradations of the Bey's pirates. When the US rejected the
Bey's demand for more tribute money, *he* declared war on the USA
(1801). I'm not sure the United States ever actually declared war.
There are a lot of parallels, but the fact that there was an actual
ruler with an actual military renders the "war-not war" comparison
useless. (There was another Barbary War, 1812-1815 with the Dey
of Algiers, which finally settled the question of US tribute once
and for all--but again, it was Algiers that declared war, not the
USA.)
But anti-piracy actions *alone* have not been considered wars.
The US was involved in the ending of Caribbean piracy (which is
on the upswing again, alas) and that wasn't considered a war.
The catch is that the pirates were state-sponsored in the case
of Tunis/Algiers/Tripoli, and it was the *state* which made the
immediate demand. That's the major difference--bin Laden may
have declared war, but he's not a country. Had the Taliban
declared war, that would have been a very different story. Al
Qaeda is a criminal organization, but calling this a "war" is
every bit as inapplicable as using that term in the "war on poverty"
and the "war on drugs."
And it's worth noting that the Tripolitan War(s) never led to
any kind of changes in US domestic policy (save a slightly greater
expenditure on naval power). Ack, I hope I articulated that
clearly.
best
LFB
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Special Identification for Arab Americans?
|
| (...) Agreed, agreed... (...) Well I've just come off (or maybe still am in) a huge row with ROSCO about semantics around "pacifist" (I still don't get what point he is trying to make) so maybe this is semantics but I am not sure I understand. Why (...) (23 years ago, 25-Sep-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
24 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
