We should not be at war with a concept; if anything, we should be at war for a concept.

Isn’t that the same thing? I’m having trouble seeing how being in favour of one concept isn’t being against some other and vice versa.

If anything, the war against jihad and the war in Afghanistan are distracting us from developing an actual coherent policy regarding both national defense and foreign policy.

In a nutshell, our defense strategy should be limited to concentrating on homeland defense; leave pre-emptive foreign operations and nation building to other countries and organisations. I can live with the validity of that argument, but to see it realized I want us out of NATO, UN peacekeeping operations, and I want any foreign bases we’re maintaining shuttered. Buchanan style isolationism. All or nothing. Deal?

My point was that manufacturing a “war on jihadism” makes jihadism the bogeyman. There’s no actual enemy in this notion.

If it helps, think of “enemy” as a euphamism for “problem”. (The “War on Terror” is an analogy or metaphor after all.) The problem we’re facing is that any number of organisations based in foreign territory are conspiring to commit acts of terror against us, and thereby inspire locally based like-minded individuals to take up arms and commit their own multitudinous acts of terror. The quality of our lives is diminished for as long as this problem persists. If I was to accept that we face no enemy, it doesn’t change the fact that we still face a problem. If we don’t treat the problem as an enemy, then how would you have us face it? Bearing in mind that I can’t accept anything that equates to “do nothing and just live with the consequences”.

I’d suggest that a political philosophy that has as its core aim the defense of liberal democracy would be preferable

That’s a lovely platitude, but a little short on details. I’m not saying I disagree; on the contrary, I’m having trouble seeing how the war on jihad model falls outside of these rather broad parametres. If you can come up with a reasonable strategy that is explicity rejects the war on jihad model I’ve presented I’d love to hear it. Going back to your first quote above and my reply, I don’t see how being in favour of defending liberal democracy doesn’t imply being against theocratic tyranny.

Unfortunately we`re confronted with ideas and social problems that will lead us to much deeper problems if we allow them the room to fester.

My objection to this pertains to the idea that the underpinning of our philosophy that will form defense and foreign policy is defined by what we are against. I would much prefer that we determine what it is we are looking to defend and go from there. We should not be at war with a concept; if anything, we should be at war for a concept.

I think `the war against jihadism is distracting from our efforts in Afghanistan` if that is what you mean, is a red herring.

This is not my concern at all. My concern is that we are in an actual tangible war in Afghanistan, but it is completely unclear as to what we are trying to achieve (though this is somewhat moot, as we won’t be there much longer, regardless of what happens). If anything, the war against jihad and the war in Afghanistan are distracting us from developing an actual coherent policy regarding both national defense and foreign policy.

This may seem like a semantic debate, but my concern is larger. It is easy to get carried away with public policy – to begin down a path for the right reasons, but fail to exercise sufficient reflection to ensure that the path you are on is the proper path. We need to make sure that the policy choices we are making adhere to our principles and to our political philosophy. It is insufficient to accept a policy initiative that merely has some similar objectives.

Calling Hassan and his ilk bogeymen doesn`t help that effort.

My point is not that Hassan is a bogey man (though I’m unsure he’s a terrorist – traitor seems like a better fit to me). My point was that manufacturing a “war on jihadism” makes jihadism the bogeyman. There’s no actual enemy in this notion. There’s no battlefield, real or metaphorical. There is just a vague concept that is separate from principles, context and results.

We can argue for an interventionist foreign policy as a means to make Canadians safe (though I’m skeptical of that) as well as a means to promote Canadian principles. We don’t need to have a “war on fill-in-the-blank” to protect liberal democracy. In fact, the two seem to collide with regularity.

Giving Afghanistan the tools and breathing room it needs to modernize and democratize and rid itself of the Taliban and the warlords is an important part of the war against the jihad on the international front.

That may be, but I’m still unconcerned with someone’s “war against the jihad”. I’m much more interested in making people safe and promoting or facilitating freedom and liberty abroad (and, naturally, protecting it at home).

I’d suggest that a political philosophy that has as its core aim the defense of liberal democracy would be preferable

I agree that wars waged against ideas and social problems are vague and prone to atrocious failures. Unfortunately we`re confronted with ideas and social problems that will lead us to much deeper problems if we allow them the room to fester. Our best option is to confront them and nip them in the bud. The alternative is to do as little as possible and hope the situation improves. (Is that a false dichotomy?) Personally, I think the latter option has already won out; we`re already heading down that road. Let`s hope the power of our collective pacifist impulses wins out and we progress unhindered into a better and brighter future. I look forward to admitting I read the situation wrong.

I think `the war against jihadism is distracting from our efforts in Afghanistan` if that is what you mean, is a red herring. Our efforts to prevent jihadist terror at home are non-negotiable in any event, regardless of the wars we`re fighting overseas.

Calling Hassan and his ilk bogeymen doesn`t help that effort. Hassan could have been stopped were it not for his commanders` wilful blindness to the threat he posed. It was treating the warning signs as benign idiosyncrasies that lead directly to the massacre.

Giving Afghanistan the tools and breathing room it needs to modernize and democratize and rid itself of the Taliban and the warlords is an important part of the war against the jihad on the international front. Afghanistan is a proven safe haven for the most dedicated, organized and violent enemies we face. I don`t see a problem that gets resolved by our refusing to consider rooting out key elements of the jihad as an important goal. To do so, so that we can concentrate purely on military operations, would effectively render such operations pointless from a defense standpoint. Nose. Face. Cutting off. Spite.

Vague declarations like the “War on Terror” or “war against jihadism” don’t make for particularly good policy. It’s the same basic formulation as the War on Drugs, the War on Poverty, or the war on whatever particular ill a politician wants to cast as an elusive existential foe.

Right now, we (Canada) are participating in an eight year old war in Afghanistan. We should probably figure out what, precisely, we’re trying to do there and craft policy accordingly. Beyond that, defense policy should focus on keeping Canadian’s safe. Fighting an ill defined “war” against nebulous philosophical bogeyman is, potentially, a distraction.