Many people question, “can one win or lose a war against an idea?” After further discussion in class about this question, I believe a nation can certainly lose a war against an idea, and they most certainly cannot win a war against an idea. As the character V, in the movie “V for Vendetta,” powerfully puts it, “ideas are bulletproof” (viewer discretion advised http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-A7FG_QKUfU). There is no arguing with this statement. When a nation wages war against another country driven by a concept, that nation is doomed to lose. Practically, that nation can constitute the war as a victory if they have “out lived” the other side. However, they have not truly won - even if that is what the numbers and pictures show. The idea still lives on.
In my opinion, the “War on Terror” is the United States’ war against an idea. Now, while many people believed and still believe that the U.S. has probable cause to be in Afghanistan or Iraq, this is irrelevant. While it seemed that there was a good reason to wage war because of the September 11th attacks and the supposed weapons of mass destruction, I think this war is now baseless. The country has classified its war as a concept – the “War on Terror.” While our country may be fighting to eradicate terrorism, or more easily, to assuage terrorism, in theory the idea of terrorism will always be present and prominent. By way of the media, the idea of “terrorism” will always be written in our history books. Therefore, because of modern technology, we can never win the “War on Terror.”
The United States could try and constitute a form of victory. Yes. They have lost fewer men. Yes. They have done more damage to a country than thought possible. Yet, they have failed to truly and successfully implement democracy in a broken country. While they definitely cannot win the “War on Terror”, they also cannot spread their own idea of democracy founded by an everlasting support. This is not to say that they should not try to share democratic ideals. However, they should not rely on democracy as a reason to wage war, and much less the notion to defeat terrorism.
Furthermore, idea is not cause. In Homer’s “The Iliad,” the Achaeans and Trojans fight not over ideas, but over different causes. While the root of the war is because of a foolish cause, the fight over Helen, it still has a tangible purpose. Whereas the “War on Terror” initially had cause, it has grown to be a war over an idea. Because of this message, “ideas are bulletproof,” I think the United States is much better served fighting terrorism through diplomacy and peaceful efforts.
While it may be nice to think that the U.S. can overcome terrorism on the battlefield, the idea of terrorism will always outlast bullets and bombs. Although at first glance war may appear the most effective method to defeating an idea, it is only temporary and quickly fleeting. Eventually, the idea takes a backseat to the fighting and, the whole purpose of war is lost. A nation cannot win a war against an idea. It must resort to more methodical approaches to defeat an idea. With war, logic is thrown out the window, and the idea still remains.
8 comments:
This is not a game blog, this is a real game blog
http://s2.ar.bitefight.org/c.php?uid=32847
First may i express some amusement at the first comment you got.
Second, i think you unintentionally brought up a very interesting point. in your second paragraph, you said that "The country has classified its war as a concept – the “War on Terror.”" i think you meant that we are waging war ON a concept, not that we have classified our war as a concept. But that brings up another question... is war anything other than a concept?
Another thought that goes with the second paragraph... it is impossible to eradicate concepts entirely. People's minds do not work like that. Once an idea has been discussed, brought up, mentioned, it will always exist somewhere.
As usual, thinking about fighting against ideas and ways of thinking in terms of the war in Iraq makes me think of Vietnam. (Especially your last paragraph....) The purpose of a war against a concept does tend to get lost, and then what's the point in the first place?
Great quote from an even better movie. Really quickly, do you think that movie (V for Vendetta) promotes Terrorism? V does bomb Parliament, kill many people, and overturn a government to move his nation in the direction he thinks is best.
The idea of fighting a war against a concept is interesting. While you say it is impossible to beat an idea because they are bulletproof, how is any war won? Think about it. Aren't all wars against/for an idea? WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and the War on Terror can all be rooted to an idea/concept.
Ultimately, I think the truth is that once a war needs to be fought, it is too late to stop the opposing movement, whether it be communism, fascism, or Islamic Fundamentalism. I would say that this war in particular is almost impossible to stop. The Islamic World spans from North Africa to Pakistan, an area that the US would not be able to secure. In each of these nations, there are anti-Western jihadists, ready to fight for Allah against the Great Satan (US). My question is, at this point, what is the best way to hinder these terrorists in their desires to wipe America off the map?
I too like the first post.
I agree that one cannot win a war against an idea.
I disagree that such a war is not worth fighting. As Edmund Burke said "All that is required for Evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing". Don't beat me up here, I'm not saying Iraq evil US good, (although it can certainly be argued convincingly that President Bush was less evil than Saddam Hussein. For those who disagree, remember that Bush wouldn't have you killed in the night for it, Saddam would).
Let me draw a good analogy. It will be impossible to win the war against crime. There will always be criminals. But obviously we should still catch, prosecute, and convict criminals right? Just because a war cannot be "won" in terms of a surrender, doesn't mean the war isn't worth fighting.
It is true that America can not eradicate an idea. However, it is possible to fight those who believe in that idea and use it for violence. Without supporters, an idea has no basis. I am not saying that to win the War on Terror we have to kill every terrorist, but killing is part of it.
Second of all, although they are fighting over Helen, one could argue that they too are fighting over an idea: pride. The Archeans feel undermined for having Helen taken from them, and are retaliating.
Ha this was the question I brought up in class - good topic. I agree 100%. I do not think it is ever possible to win a war against a concept unless there is total annihilation of the people believe in that concept. In today's world that is impossible based on how spread out our cultures are and are meshing in each country. I'm sure there's a few islamists who live in the US or Western countries. It's impossible to locate them unless they have committed a crime or publicly announced they are islamists.
I agree again that we can win quantitatively, but not succeed at the primary objective (the concept)
First of all, V for Vendetta, great movie. Second of all, the War on Terror most certainly fits the mold of a war against a topic. The broad term "terror" cannot be used to focus in on a clear cut enemy. Had George Bush decided to wage a war on Al-Qaeda, things might be different. Al-Qaeda is an entity, however hard to find, it is nonetheless an entity. "Terror" is an idea that can be born inside anyone, creating an infinite enemy for the United States. Wars fought against concepts or idealogies create more problems than they do solutions.
I mostly agree with Ed here. Just because a war doesn't seem like it can be won doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it. There may not be a clear victory but there may be benefits to fighting those ideas. I like the analogy he uses with crime, although crime will be ever present our struggle against it will always contribute to the safety of those around us.
Post a Comment