There is not, nor has there ever been, a war on terror. One cannot
have a war "on" something, as clever a rhetorical move as the phrase
may be. What there is is a police action by a powerful police force
that was never elected or appointed by the world's citizens but
appointed itself through violence; that police action in response to
the medium-sized crime of 9/11 has turned into an open-ended police
occupation and an excess of an unsigned social contract with which
people nonetheless live.
If it is not enough to be against the war on terror (or against
anything), though, then what could the American center-left be for? It
could be for the spirit of global law and global justice, in which
legitimate global police actions (even those not properly pursued in
international legal terms) and the possibility of postcolonial
self-determination of peoples in the Middle East are potential global
goods, but militarization of police actions are unacceptable
transgressions. …
Global policing (even with the police force rooted firmly in a
national context) exists in relation to a global community that can
legitimately call for its scaling back. A wayward self-appointed
sheriff can be checked in a way that a war-waging military force
cannot be.
But there is no global community either, not in the cohesive sense of
community as a unified entity – thinking in those terms is part of the
problem. There is … a global multitude which is heterogenous by
definition, never unified. Should the center-left pick up on policing
as a language, it sets up a struggle more on the terrain of a radical
left agenda – between the desire of the global policeman to act on
behalf of a global community, and the rejection of that unified vision
of community by irreducible diversities. That tension, it seems to me,
is precisely the kind of terrain on which struggles for global justice
– redistribution of wealth, ecological well-being, self-determination
of peoples – could actually be waged with hopes of success.

Fighting terrorism
buckhornroad.blogspot.com [2]

A report came out recently that is being gushed over by the Democrats
that says the war in Iraq is breeding more terrorists. The first thing
I thought was how odd that was, seeing as how, according to the
Democrats, the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on
terrorism.
It's more than that though. Think about what this report and what the
Democrats are saying. They are saying that to fight an enemy is
useless because you just breed more of what you are fighting:
I'm sorry, President Roosevelt, we are going to have to let Hitler do
what he wants. Fighting him will only make him mad and it will breed
more Nazis. …
If we base the validity of our wars based on whether or not we will
make our enemy mad, then that kind of keeps us from ever defending
ourselves, doesn't it? Of course, I'm sure that suits most leftists
and Democrats just fine.

The leaker in chief
disasterpresident.blogspot.com [3]