War on ________?

[m5lange1]

War is a very large three letter word. In our ever-changing national vocabulary here in the USA we have changed its traditional meaning to add power to some concepts...
War on poverty
War on drugs
and avioded its tradional meaning
We have not "declared" war since WWII.

So what?
I think we have put our nads in a vice with the
"War on terror" term.

A lot of us interperate that like "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs". Which means spending lots of money, talking a lot about it, and losing dismally. Not real comforting.

A lot of us interperate "War on Terror" in the more traditional meaning so we think we have to use an army in the field as if the terrorists are going to all get togehter to face our army in combat. Unfortunately President Bush is one who seems to believe this.

In the first case use of the term "war" is just a useless way to add importance to the phrase. Silly but harmless.

In the second case the dangers are obvious.

Terrorism is NOT war it is crime. Not that I am minimizing 911. It was crime on an awesome scale but still crime.

If some slob scored a jet and crashed it into a building to kill his ex-wife who worked on the top floor the scope of damage would be the same as if he were a terrorist.

So what is the point? I think we have called it a "war" and tried to treat it as a traditional war, as if the terrorists are fielding an army.

If we had called it "crime" think how much security we could have built on the home front "which is really what most of us are worried about" with all the manpower and money we have spent on the "war".

[mlingley]

Your right. Calling it a war is just an excuse for the government to spend vast amounts of money. That's the real problem. The government is controlled the military industrial complex that Eishenhower warned us about back in the day.

[PatrickHenry]

But m5, how does the Carlyle Group profit from stuff unless it is "war?" More important, how does Halliburton get billions in no-bid contracts without destruction and siezure of oil infrastructure?(irony)

[syracusa]

Originally posted by m5lange1, War is a very large three letter word. In our ever-changing national vocabulary here in the USA we have changed its traditional meaning to add power to some concepts... War on poverty War on drugs and avioded its tradional meaning We have not "declared" war since WWII. So what? I think we have put our nads in a vice with the "War on terror" term. A lot of us interperate that like "War on Poverty" and "War on Drugs". Which means spending lots of money, talking a lot about it, and losing dismally. Not real comforting. A lot of us interperate "War on Terror" in the more traditional meaning so we think we have to use an army in the field as if the terrorists are going to all get togehter to face our army in combat. Unfortunately President Bush is one who seems to believe this. In the first case use of the term "war" is just a useless way to add importance to the phrase. Silly but harmless. In the second case the dangers are obvious. Terrorism is NOT war it is crime. Not that I am minimizing 911. It was crime on an awesome scale but still crime. If some slob scored a jet and crashed it into a building to kill his ex-wife who worked on the top floor the scope of damage would be the same as if he were a terrorist. So what is the point? I think we have called it a "war" and tried to treat it as a traditional war, as if the terrorists are fielding an army. If we had called it "crime" think how much security we could have built on the home front "which is really what most of us are worried about" with all the manpower and money we have spent on the "war".

One of the best posts I have read on this forum.

[SVMc]

There's a massive amount of IR literature out there on this exact subject.

On a quick overview one of the theories the I think is the most rounded out is the employment of the soundbite to gain legitimacy.

Basically increasingly as our society operates in information overload the soundbite is the modus-operendi of PR communciations.

War - is a great PR word.

It lends a state authority, automatic legitimacy. Not only does it legitimize large amount of money spent, but it also puts discussisons into a very "black and white" context.

People who counter the War on 'X" are viewed (at best) as apathetic, or inferior citizens and (at worst) as traitors.

Because of the military connotation War adds a sense of emergency to an issue, it becomes securitized (Carole Cohn writes some wonderful books on the language of security).

When we securitize an issue the general population has less ability to question the issue.... it becomes the realm of security experts.

So using "war"

1. adds legitimacy to a particular course of action
2. securitizes the issue into a "you're with us or against us" theme
3. inhibits public discussion that is more apparent on non-securitized policy issues.

[Scribbler1]

Not only the word "war"but thwe word "terror"has baffled me since Bush started using it. Not "terrorism"but "terror".
Terrorism I could see, but terror is an emotion and I always thought it sounded stupid to declare war on an emotion.

But you're right, Bush said it so it must be correct.

[SVMc]

Don't worry I'm not condoning any of the PR swing that flies around the securitization of words. There's most definately a lot of re-working of "terror" and "terrorism" away from an emotional state towards and adjective to discribe government enemies. Every now and they I think they may come up with better ways to describe non-state resistence, I don't think I'm going to live that long.

[castille]

Its not war, its police action!

[m5lange1]

LOL Cas I hope you meant that with the same sarcasm I interpreted in it.