My analysis of Sontag’s op-ed will be up on Salon shortly. But I was struck by the similarity of her opposition to any description of our current struggle as war with Paul Krugman’s op-ed today as well. Here’s Sontag:
When the government declares war on cancer or poverty or drugs it means the government is asking that new forces be mobilized to address the problem. It also means that the government cannot do a whole lot to solve it. When the government declares war on terrorism – terrorism being a multinational, largely clandestine network of enemies – it means that the government is giving itself permission to do what it wants. When it wants to intervene somewhere, it will. It will brook no limits on its power… What I do question is the pseudo-declaration of pseudo-war. These necessary actions should not be called a “war.” There are no endless wars; but there are declarations of the extension of power by a state that believes it cannot be challenged.
And here’s Krugman:
But if this is war, it bears little resemblance to the wars America has won in the past. Where is the call for sacrifice, for a great national effort? How will we know when or if we’ve won? One doesn’t have to be a military expert to realize that the struggle ahead won’t involve any D-Days, nor will there ever be a V-J day. There will never be a day when we can declare terrorism stamped out for good. It will be more like fighting crime, where success is always relative and victory is never final, than like fighting a war. And the metaphor we use to describe our struggle matters: some things that are justifiable in a temporary time of war are not justifiable during a permanent fight against crime, even if the criminals are murderous fanatics.
Clarifying convergence, huh?
The Dish 