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