When describing the nation’s counter-terrorism campaign, we generally hear quite a bit about a “generational” conflict, but John McCain kicked things up a notch the other day, claiming the “global war on terror” will last quite a few generations.
“I … firmly believe that the challenge of the 21st century is the struggle against radical Islamic extremism,” McCain said. “It is a transcendent issue. It is hydra-headed. It will be with us for the rest of the century.”
Josh Marshall pondered exactly what this claim means.
Now, think about that. That’s ninety-three years…. McCain states it as a matter of fact that the war against militant Islam will still be the defining national security threat for this country in 2099 and for years after.
I know we customarily give a rather wide berth to rhetorical excess in the theater of politics. But what on earth is McCain talking about? Not long ago it was enough to sate the historical vanity of the War on Terror mongers to dub it a ‘long war’ or ‘generational struggle’, which it may well be. But apparently even that is now insufficient. Only an entire century will do. It is almost as if as the concept in the real-world present looks more and more ill-judged and foolhardy its credentials must be buffed up by giving it more and more ridiculous lifespans ranging off into the unknowable future.
I think that’s true, but I’d add that McCain’s vision is, if anything, understating the timeline. Based on the hawkish take on the Middle East, a “war on terror” will last at least through the 21st century, and almost certainly beyond.
We are, after all, hoping to stem the tide of religious extremists committing brutal acts of violence. In Christianity, such religiously-inspired violence spanned about a millennium. Under McCain’s approach to this conflict, won’t we be combating Islamic extremists at least that long?
We’re engaged in an undefined, open-ended war against an undetermined enemy that spans several continents and is unaffiliated with any specific nation-state. I’m rather surprised McCain was willing to limit his vision to just the 21st century.
Indeed, as long as we’re looking at this in a big-picture kind of way, a McCain-like vision of a “war on terror” can’t end until we’ve “won.” I’m curious how those who share McCain’s ideology would define “victory” in this context.
When the Middle East is dominated by democracies? That won’t do it; people can vote for terrorists. When al Qaeda is destroyed? There are other networks that can and would take its place. When religious extremists are no longer motivated by their faith to commit acts of violence? That might, um, take a while.
For that matter, the political implications of this could be fairly broad. The administration and its allies argue, for example, that certain powers have to be extended to the federal government at this crucial time because, of course, we’re engaged in a war against terrorists around the world. Just as soon as the conflict is over, the president won’t have to ignore pesky laws like the 4th Amendment anymore. But in the meantime, we should all be patient. And if you’re not, you’re obviously soft on terror.
The “meantime” is indefinite, though, because there’s no foreseeable conclusion and we’re not sure who we’re fighting.
I feel better; how about you?