Print
Every time I hear one of the network “talents” use the phrase the “War on Terror” it grates like fingers on a blackboard. I think Gore Vidal first made the point that you cannot wage war against a tactic then Maureen Dowd and several others reiterated the point.
An exploration of our government’s use of the word “terrorism” yields only the confusion we have come to expect from the Bush Administration. Back in WWII the government produced a series of propaganda films titled “Know Your Enemy.” I’m not sure they could–or more pointedly would–do that today. To ask “Why not?” is to uncover an old Republican tactic in new clothes.
As we all know, there are many groups around the world whose tactics could be described as terrorist. The State Department’s October 11, 2005 Fact Sheet on Foreign Terrorist Organizations listed 42 groups including United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia, Real IRA, Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, Shining Path as well as many groups I am ashamed to say I have never heard of. Yet it is clear that when the administration or the media speak of the “War on Terror,” they are not referring to the Tamil Tigers or Shining Path.
Reading the State Department’s definition of terrorism only further muddles the matter. It states terrorism is any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination.
(V) The use of any–
(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or
(b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
By this definition a fair number of people occupying prison cells in this country plus what used to euphemistically be called “organized crime” (I always wondered who committed disorganized crime) might come under this definition as well as their counterparts throughout the world.
Originally I thought the “War on Terror” was synonymous with al Qaeda, since they carried out the 9/11 murders. But over the last few years people have applied the term to a variety of groups. What these groups seem to have in common is that they are Muslim. In other words, for all its obfuscation, based on their list of terrorist organizations, the prime definition of a terrorist is ideological not tactical. Even more baffling we apply it to Sunni and Shiite alike as if these two religious factions somehow joined together in a vast conspiracy that defies logic.
Something more ominous has also been developing in the way we use the word domestically. Terrorism has become the new communism. Once Americans of a certain political persuasion used “commie” like a schoolyard taunt to describe anyone who happened to disagree with the established order of things. Call for nuclear disarmament, you were a “commie.” Support the United Nations, you were a “commie.” Raise the income tax, you were a “commie.”
Today the phrase is “soft on terrorism.” Judging by some of the arrests that have been made a terrorist can be anyone who happens to make an ill-timed remark. Anyone who speaks ill of George W. Bush is “soft on terrorism.”
George Orwell and others, including Vidal, have observed that imprecise language leads to all sorts of imprecise problems (read the War in Iraq) or to an unhealthy “us” versus “them” mentality that Dr. Seuss brilliantly satirized in his book on Sneetches. It also is a handy way of covering up either faulty thinking or something people don’t want to say out loud.
The media, above all, should know better. The McCarthy years took place while some of the reporters and anchors who are regarded as media “elder statesmen” were first beginning their careers. They remember when Lucille Ball was branded a “red,” to which Desi replied, “The only thing red about Lucy is her hair.”
So the time has come to give the “War on Terror” a well-deserved burial. From now on no one in the media or blogdom should use the phrase. More pointedly, it is long past the time that some reporter does not press George Bush about the phrase at his next news conference. WHO are we at war against? The American people and the world deserve an honest answer.
Crossposts: My Left Wing, All Things Democrat,
Print Posted by: liberalamerican
