How useful is the phrase "War on Terror"?
According to PA News/Channel 4, British ministers and civil servants have decided to stop using the phrase “war on terror.” Apparently, it gives terrorists a “shared identity”, according to Hilary Benn, Britain’s Development Secretary, and strengthens disaffected groups by making them feel part of something “bigger.”
Richard Nixon originated two other non-wars on non-enemies: the war on cancer in 1971 and the war on drugs, in 1972. The phrase has earlier antecedents; for example ‘the war to end war.’
War is decisive, which is why politicians are drawn to the word. War has clear battle lines, clear victory conditions and clear delineation of good guys (us) and bad guys (them). Rally the troops. Mobilise resources. Take command. Attack! War words are powerful but not always helpful.
But defeating terrorism, cancer and drugs are in a different category of problem. They need different vocabularies to solve them. I welcome this change of language in the British Government. We shouldn’t be afraid of honest communication about our problems. In fact, that is the only way to make progress.
Technorati Tags: War on Terror, GWOT, language, vocabulary
John Whiteside wrote:
Well, it’s a sassier phrase than “The Continuous Struggle Against Those Seeking to Harm Civilians.”
Your point is very well taken, though; the “war on terror” is a vacuous phrase, and I wish the US government would follow the UK example on this. “Terror” is not an enemy; it’s a violent tactic that has been used to accomplish political and military ends as long as there has been human conflict. And tactics that we general recognize as “terrorism,” such as attacking civilian populations to instill fear and chaos, are generally not prevented by “armies” in a “war” but by ongoing security measures.
Thus the “war on terror” creates a war that by definition is a permanent state of alarm with a shadowy, undefinable enemy. Very Orwellian.
So it it useful? That depends on who you are! Politically, it’s been rather. useful indeed.
But it also tends to block out serious discussion of what kinds of security measures are designed to keep an open, democratic society safe, and that is really tragic.
Words have great power, and this is an excellent example.
Posted on 16-Apr-07 at 6:43 pm | Permalink
Ray Ward wrote:
I think George Orwell would have had something to say about the phrase “war on terror.” You know, 1984 and all.
Posted on 16-Apr-07 at 11:56 pm | Permalink
Bruce Pilgrim wrote:
Years before Nixon, U.S. President Lyndon Johnson rather famously “declared war” on poverty, only to be distracted and finally completely overwhelmed by a much more tangible war in Vietnam.
I’ve always felt that the “war on terror” was cynically calculated to justify whatever the Bush administration wanted to do, linking the 9/11 attacks with Iraq when no such connection exists — although an astonishing large number of Americans still do believe there is a connection to this day.
I daresay many American troops have been led to believe that by fighting in Iraq, they are somehow avenging 9/11, and I believe that the abuses of AbuGreb were fed by this same delusion.
Ultimately, winning a war on terror is somewhat like setting out to eliminate evil, an impossible and ridiculous objective.
As Ray Ward pointed out, the concept of endless war from Orwell’s 1984 appears to be playing out in the “real world.”
If you buy the concept, virtually any activity that limits individual freedom can be justified. How can anyone be against a war on terror? Such a person is a terrorist, by definition.
Posted on 17-Apr-07 at 12:43 pm | Permalink
donviti wrote:
a great line in an article here http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/britain-stops-using-war-on-terror-phrase/20070416185709990001
reads:
Garry Hindle, a terrorism expert at the Royal United Services Institute think tank, said the terrorist threat facing Britain - starkly revealed by the July 7, 2005, transit attacks that killed 52 London commuters - made officials realize the limitations of an abstract phrase like “war on terror.”
The phrase in the US has no limitations. We here in the US are victims of the endless strawman. The ability of the administration to utilize the war on terror against a mulitude of straw men has been key to the GOP’s success in past elections.
Posted on 17-Apr-07 at 6:09 pm | Permalink
alasdair wrote:
Bruce is right and with some sad resigned chuckles it amuses me that the reason Hilary Benn cites for dropping the phrase is that it makes the little bunches of terrorists think they’re part of some big thing.
as Bruce points out both the US and UK governments have been using this phrase to make sure that we their people believe that the little bunches of terrorists ARE part of some big thing and have used this excuse for any number of infringements of our civil liberties.
Quis Custodiet Custodes Ipsos?
Posted on 17-Apr-07 at 7:15 pm | Permalink
Robert wrote:
Err I love the tie Jon is wearing. Is that the reason for the 3D glasses?
Posted on 20-Apr-07 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
Stilgherrian · End of the “War on Terror”? wrote:
[...] ministers and civil servants have decided to stop using the phrase “War on Terror.” Apparently it gives terrorists a “shared identity”, according to Hilary Benn, [...]
Posted on 23-Apr-07 at 9:57 am | Permalink
Bad Language / Interesting links and new year’s resolutions wrote:
[...] wrote about the vacuity and limitations of the phrase "war on terror" (and other bogus wars, [...]
Posted on 02-Jan-08 at 8:48 am | Permalink