Pubdate: Wed, 31 Jan 2007
Source: San Diego City Beat (CA)
Copyright: 2007 San Diego City Beat
Contact:  http://www.sdcitybeat.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/2764
Author: Randy Hencken

A WAR ON 'WAR'

A war on 'war' In response to Tony Phillips' commentary "A war worth 
winning" ["Because I Said So," Dec. 20], the essence of his article 
is noble, but his call to action is inappropriate. The choice to use 
the war metaphor is naive and in bad taste. Liberal commentators know 
that wars cause death, suffering, destruction and numerous other 
negative consequences--even when the term war is used as a metaphor.

I find it odd that Phillips referenced a slue of wars that have not 
obtained their objectives--"the war on terror," "the drug war," wars 
on aggression, imperialism, totalitarianism and ethnic cleansing. He 
even made a reference to the Vietnam War. None of these wars has been 
ultimately successful. The war on terror is unwinnable and has been 
credited for creating more terrorism. The drug war is a failure; it 
has caused more harm than good. As many progressive thinkers have 
noted, it is not a war on drugs but a war on people. War has not rid 
the world of aggression, imperialism, totalitarianism or ethnic cleansing.

I wonder what Phillips imagined when he invoked a "full-scale war" on 
poverty. Did he picture tanks rolling over the bodies of poor people? 
Did he imagine smart bombs educating impoverished people on how to 
build credit? Did he envision secret prisons torturing poverty until 
it confessed to what cave in Afghanistan the top-poverty-official was 
hiding in?

Obviously Phillips did not imagine these scenarios, but the term war 
is explicitly bonded to violence.

Phillips acknowledged that President Johnson launched an unsuccessful 
"war on poverty," and Phillips blamed the Vietnam War for the 
petering out of the "war on poverty." This assertion is not entirely 
accurate; there was a plethora of reasons for the demise of Johnson's 
"war on poverty," too many to discuss here.

To put it succinctly, we cannot combat poverty through the lens of 
war, even if it is just a metaphor. Poverty is, unfortunately, 
incredibly abundant. Phillips' generalization of homeless people, 
"people are homeless because they are poor," was coupled with 
acknowledging that there are plenty of reasons for individuals to be 
impoverished. It is absolutely righteous to work to prevent/end 
poverty; sadly, though, it is presumably an unbeatable fact of life. 
Certainly it will not be ended through war.

Since we chose to have a war on terror, we have enlisted a mechanism 
that is great at war--our military. Now we are stuck in Iraq, trying 
to spread democracy with the wrong tool. If we had been more 
thoughtful as to how we were going to deal with terrorism we wouldn't 
be in the nation-building Iraq quagmire.

Since we chose to have a war on drugs, we have enlisted an aggressive 
police force to enforce drug laws on our own citizens. The 
consequence is that proportionally we put more of our citizens in 
jail/prison than any other First World nation, yet drug use is just 
as prevalent today as it was when Nixon launched the drug war.

I long for a day when our leaders (and liberal commentators) abolish 
war and the war metaphor. Poverty is an enemy, but it is more like 
cancer than an opposing army. We don't have a full-scale war on 
cancer--because we can't bomb cancer out of existence. But we do have 
a "race for a cure."

In the future, Mr. Phillips, when you are feeling inspired to evoke 
support for the needy, please choose your terms more cautiously. 
Let's find a "cure."

Randy Hencken

Golden Hill)
- ---
MAP posted-by: Beth Wehrman