collected writings

War Against VerBs

Some recent events have reminded me of a Boondocks cartoon that I saw last winter break. For those of you who are subject to Montana's somewhat lackluster assortment of comics in the local newspapers, The Boondocks , created by Aaron McGurder, is very relevant and very funny.

(Side note: What I just did was make a statement called an "opinion," which does not necessarily have to be based in fact. However, I do trust my judgment, and I do not claim an opinion without knowing the majority of the facts. Anyway, before I digress too much into mudslinging...)

In the strip, Huey, the political rabble-rouser, calls up the FBI to find out how the war is going. The strip continues as follows:

FBI: Well, I think it's clear we're making good progress against terrorists and those who harbor them.
Huey: Oh, no. I'm sorry. I meant the war on drugs. You remember the war on drugs, don't you?
FBI: Huh?
Huey: I mean the government has spent a fortune, thrown countless people in jail, invaded a country - I figure we're gonna win that one any day now, right?
FBI: Well, I, um - we're making progress, I guess -
Huey: So how much longer we talkin' here - like a month? A few months? Just give me a ballpark figure. Hello? Hello?

Hello indeed. The United States has a history of starting wars with no clear end in sight, more an excuse to divert money from where it is needed than actual attempts to right wrongs, end evils, and most importantly, to protect Americans within our borders.

Like the Cold War, for example. Most people recognize that the Cold War is done, what with the collapse of the Soviet Union over a decade ago. But try telling that to the industrial military complex.

Tax money continues to fund the Star Wars program, helping to keep the skies free of communist missiles since the days of Ronald Regan. Today, of course, "communist missiles" have been replaced with "small state/terrorist missiles," but the opportunity for the military remains the same.

The Star Wars missile defense system does not have a stellar test history, with two out of the last six tests failing. This means that in the event of a missile attack, 4/6 ths of the country will survive, which in the words of Jack Nicholson, "ain't bad."

Unfortunately, the defense system has shown no ability to stop terrorists from hijacking planes and crashing them into tall buildings, or to create national panic with a handful of anthrax tainted letters.

The money being used to create a viable defense shield could be better used elsewhere. In this time of national crisis, that probably means shoveling the money into a land war in Asia, but ideally the money could be used for scientific (i.e. a manned trip to mars) and educational purposes (i.e. to bail out athletic departments mired in debt and corruption).

The money could even be returned to the taxpayers to use as (gasp) they see fit. But it probably won't.

There are more than a few similarities between the war on terrorism and the war on drugs. Neither has a real evil mastermind controlling bloodthirsty dominions in an effort to dominate the world. Both have unrealistic, high-minded goals. And neither can be won with any sense of finality.

With the war on drugs, the solution is simple, and always has been: legalize everything and let nature take its course.

Sure, people will get hurt or killed, but they do anyway. The fact that something is illegal is not a huge hurdle for many people, and I do not think that many more people would turn to a life of drugs simply because it was now legal.

Certain laws would have to change, like heavily, heavily increasing the penalties for crimes committed under the influence (like mandatory, and permanent, revocation of driving privileges after a single DUI conviction), but by and large, the system would work.

The solution is not as easy for the war against terrorism. We cannot simply legalize terrorism and expect our lives to be any safer. The solution? I don't know.

The missile defense shield can easily be built by opening the competition to private industry, and much of our international turmoil can be fixed by withdrawing all troops from peacekeeping and policing missions, and either sending them to the very front line, or returning them home.

Anything, essentially, except what we are doing now. I've never really been a fan of the status quo.

However, I think it is clear that the current method of operation, long and drawn-out "wars against verbs" rather than wars against real persons and places is not the best solution for the problems that hound the United States.