You are on page 1of 2


In class we discussed how "[b]y definition, terrorism is a concept or category that describes
human actions... To war against terrorism, therefore, is to war against a classification, a
description, a word." How is going to war against a concept/description/word problematic in
terms of identifying what success looks like and how to achieve it? Feel free to discuss not only
the "War on Terror" but also the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Poverty" in your answer if you
would like.

War against a concept makes success less identifiable. Not only is it a controversial
issue, but it is also a societal issue. Society must fix itself and fit the mold of the world. For
instance, the War on Drugs within the U.S. and the Philippines results in detaining people with
families that sell drugs to make a living, and the moral values is clearly evident within this
problem. However, if you were to compare it to WWI or WWII there were clear objectives to both
sides. This is what makes a war against a concept/description/word problematic. In order to
discern problems within concept war, society must critically think about the options available
and form a compromise. Achieving success takes time and effort and one of the many things (i
think) people dont understand is that it requires plenty of patience. The Trump presidency,
however, makes this war all the more harder to tackle. You have a biased government, with no
sincere priorities and an American populous outraged at the facts given on a silver platter. Thus,
this doesnt benefit anyone, it only adds fuel to the fire. Second, the language used surrounding
the issues dehumanizes people into considering it a normal part of life. This desensitizes people
into thinking that it shouldnt matter to them if it doesnt affect them, however, this type of
view/attitude toward a problem doesnt change the fact that its still there. By accepting it as a
part of the world today, it not only creates ignorant people, but it also influences a generation of
children that can be a pivotal change within society. Ultimately, going to war against a concept
has its issues, but critically thinking, finding solutions, and being aware of social issues benefits
the change people want within society.
2. In 2001, President Bush said about our country's response to the attacks on 9/11: "This
crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take a while." Think about all 3 parts of that quote,
and discuss the ways in which it frames the discussion of our "War on Terror". How might
Muslims in general, and Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" and their apologists in
particular, interpret Bush's quote?

The way the quote is structured is meant to showcase the purpose of the discussion on
the War on Terror. The first part of the quote, -crusade is the hook that draws the attention to
discussion, and encourages listeners that this is a war where our help will benefit the world and
it is, in a sense, a cleansing of a threat. The next part, this war on terrorism, is where the
problem is identified, thus invoking fear and hatred. Lastly, the third part of the quote gives the
the meaning weight to the issue. It provokes emotion that although this is for the greater good, it
comes at a price. I think Muslims in general may interpret it as a direct attack to the certain
group of people, it categorizes them along with the negative connotation of Muslim extremists
and makes them inferior. Muslims who believe they are "estesh'hads" may interpret Bushs
quote as a lie because their view is not aimed toward terror, on the contrary, it is quoted in the
article as martyr-like meaning they arent martyrs, but have have qualities associated with
martyrs. Its fairly all doublespeak, and because this language is used heavily in politics, being
able to critically think and discern truth will make ones understanding of the world much clearer.