The War on Terror & the Idea of the State

IN BRIEF
The 'War on Terror' and the Idea of the State

Contrary to public understanding, that has been aided in its formulation by the media repeating those self-serving statements of those leaders whose nations have a seat in the UN, the 'War on Terror' is not self-explanatory, unless we take 'The War on Terror' to mean :

• The War on those who do not have access to as public a podium as the UN to voice and seek redress for their grievances but who dare to presume to exercise the selfsame aggressional 'rights' as some of those nations who have been snubbed in the UN or elsewhere,
  

• The War on those who have managed to forge ties unbound by the traditional demarcations of the nation-state but who do not see this archaic idea of the state as a necessary pre-requisite to behave as the traditional state had done,

• The War on those whose previous fragmentation across the planet had left them unable to form a consciousness of themselves as a group united by some interests or other and put up any form of resistance that 'national' powers felt compelled to consider,

• The War on those who, due to advances in technology, are able to utilise those tools necessary to form a global consciousness and advance their interests just as traditional nation-states had been able to form within the constraints imposed by the technology available at that time. The nation-state is a relic of previous technology just as cross-border nation-states are made possible with the technology of the present day.
  

• The war on those who do not view the nation-state as the legitimate vehicle through conflict ought to be pursued because it has failed with its observance of the best of feral traditions to form any sort of harmonious cohesion that cannot be construed as purely self-serving,

Both the United States and Al Qaeda are guilty of conducting a 'War on Terror' that claims the lives of non-uniformed combatants either 'collaterally' or intentionally. The only thing that distinguishes them is that one required some degree of physical proximity and level of technology to form its state whilst the other had to wait for this phenomenon called 'Globalisation' and the 'information-highway' before it could start on the selfsame developmental path as the traditional states.

All political states are dependent on perceptual states. As technology advances and makes gobalisation a reality, the perceptual states advance. Physical proximity is exchanged for meaningful cultural homogeneity facilitated by digital proximity.

The 'War on Terror' is a phrase that depends on previous conceptions of the 'state' for its legitimate conceptual validity. If we were to remove the conceptual restrictions that the idea of the 'state' places on 'cultural consciousness' and what actions are relatively legitimate compared to selfsame actions engaged in out of the context of the state, we would find ourselves hardpressed to argue for the distinctive conceptual existence of the 'War on Terror' as opposed to any inter-state conflict.

The 'War on Terror' as a phenomena distinctive from previous wars does not exist. It is a fallacy that depends on the degree to which we accept the idea of the state as the only legitimate entity within which we ought to makes sense of all reality.

'Terrorism' is an act undertaken by almost all states in their formative years in their efforts to forge a geographically local political entity. Terrorism, again, has come upon us as the 7th horseman, heralding the end of the nation-state as we know it.

(article first published in May 2005 in blogspot)