Republic of Athens

Shhhhh. War.

Image by Getty Images via Daylife

BREAKING NEWS…

REPUBLICOFATHENS.COM HAS RECEIVED WORD THAT, DESPITE RUMORS TO THE CONTRARY, THE WARS IN IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN ARE STILL GOING ON.

We suspect that some combination of the American national fetish for disposable, short-lived, fashionably ”hot” topics, the national news media’s preoccupation with the entire economy’s face-first collapse, as well as the Democrats’ and Republicans’ steadfast focus on cute one-liners and headline-grabbin’ zingers, has given credence to unsubstantiated rumors that the war has actually ended.

However, our independent research has recently revealed the truth of the matter — the United States still spends more than $10 billion per month on one of the least popular, least viable, least-justified military assaults in modern history. According to lots of academic publications and several smart people, the Iraqi government has still never attacked Americans, Saddam Hussein is still not stock-piling ammunition for destroying the U.S., a whole lot of people are still dying needlessly every day as a direct result of American occupation, and Osama bin Laden (who is still not an Iraqi) is still possibly watching all of this on a flat-screen somewhere.

And while we’re on the topic, the “War on Terror,” and its implied purpose of increasing national security, not only risks accomplishing the very opposite (while blowing tons of much-needed cash), but also presents something of a grammatical conundrum. By definition, “terror” is a state of panic, the result of conditions that are, well, terrifying. There are competing schools of thought regarding whether the more obscure, stretched meaning of “terror” ought to pass as part of the word’s officially recognized definition. After all, “terrorISM” is already an aptly unmistakable term used to describe deliberate acts that bring about such… terror.

So, even if waging a war against such a massive, nebulous and utterly unpreventable concept were possible, it should probably still be called a “War on Terrorism,” rather a “War on (terrorism’s resultant) Terror.” In the propaganda war between catchy and clear, catchy wins. Clearly. As it stands, though, the war’s nickname suggests, or at the very least leaves open the interpretation, that U.S. troops are off fighting merely against the fears that result from terrorism, rather than against the purveyors of terrorism itself.

We don’t mean to be flip about this, but a war that’s already unjust, un-winnable, immoral, dreadfully wasteful, and unapproved by the United Nations Security Council, should at the very least have a title that’s both cool and semantically sound.

Sure, the war is a debacle that’s helping to create even more enemies around the world while further destabilizing the Iraqi self-reliance it allegedly aims to promote. And sure, some of the world’s most respected scientific journals, epidemiologists, and statisticians attribute more than a million deaths to the effects of the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation. But is nothing sacred?

Catastrophically misguided foreign policies matter. But so does the war of semantics. For now, we’ll just count this as one more reason to oppose the war, “ism” or no “ism.” Again, while we recognize that the complete downfall of the federal economy is in fact a big deal, as is the ongoing, intriguing battle for the AFC North title, we view it as our duty to seek out and report the facts. Let there be no more confusion: the war has not ended.

Please stay tuned for future coverage. Republicofathens.com will be among the first to announce when war is over.

For republicofathens.com, I’m Troy Gregorino.

No related posts.