Wars Against Intangible Objects Are Flawed & Unrealizable

Wars Against Intangible Objects are Flawed & Unrealizable
Therefor any declaration of such should be viewed with intense scrutiny

When talking about the twentieth century, and trying to condense it into an easily manageable textbook title, many people look back and focus on the Cold War, or the “war on communism.” Indeed, it was one of the defining engagements of the 20th century, the two world wars notwithstanding. It influenced every corner of the world, dividing it into America and their capitalist followers, the Soviet Union and their communist contingent, with everyone else in between, fair game for conversion or invasion.

But to phrase the conflict as a “war on communism” is misleading, ambiguous, and oversimplifying to the point of the term becoming meaningless. This is not just a problem with the so-called “war on communism,” but it also extends to other wars on intangible objects, examples of which can be found everywhere – the war on poverty, the war on AIDS, the war on drugs, and principally today: the war on terror.

Oftentimes, this phrase is completely meaningless, and boils down to simple rhetoric on the part of the politician or organization in charge. Other times, the conflict in question exhibits real tendencies of war – violence, death, maiming, etcetera. The reasoning behind using such warlike terminology when examining any sort of problem is many fold, which I will try to address further into this essay.

To do this, I will focus on three of these so-called wars: one of which, although over, still affects us today, while the other two seem to be most pertinent in this day and age. Namely, these are the wars against communism, drugs, and terrorism. In addition to trying to understand why we use this terminology, I will also attempt to illustrate the futility of waging war against an idea or – in the case of something as open-ended as “drugs” – a life decision. Finally, I will end with why it is dangerous to reduce the political discourse to the level of empty military hyperbole – short catch phrases more suitable for bumper stickers than real thought processes.

There are many problems with any title given to the Cold War. It is described as “cold” because none of the major powers came to direct confrontations with each other. However, it became quite hot as both powers fought proxy wars in small third world countries (the “third world” designation itself coming from the Cold War, signifying a country which was not particularly allied to either major power). These proxy wars were fought on practically every continent, from Chile in South America to Angola in Africa, Afghanistan in the Middle East to (most notoriously) Vietnam in Asia. 1

Thus using the term “cold war” is misleading at best, and nearly dishonest at worst. But the term that is also commonly thrown around when describing the chief struggle of the twentieth century is even more problematic, at so many levels.

The so-called “War Against Communism.” To use such a nom de plume innately causes many more problems than “cold war” ever could. Throwing communism into the picture borders more on sensationalizing the conflict than offering a more accurate representation. The Cold War was – at the base of it – a struggle to see who would achieve global hegemony. While communism as an economic system was seen as particularly anti-American and perverse, oftentimes hostilities were initiated by the perceived threat that was felt, and not any real threat of slowly advancing communism. Indeed, the specifics of a nation and its ruler would matter little, as long as it was pro-American, and allowed American bases and goods to enter.

The amount that those in power considered communism a true threat, as compared to the Soviet Union, is debatable. But in any case, the citizens of America considered communism the threat. So it would seem at face value that calling the Cold War the “war against communism” would be fairly accurate. Except that to have a war – in the most visceral of senses – is impossible against something like communism – a theory.

It is easy to wage war against a nation, or a group of nations, or some other similar political or social group of people. However an idea? To make the phrase “war against communism” make any sense at all, we must expand our definition of war. Instead of the narrowest definition, we can define it as any sort of ‘struggle’. But, then why not call it the “struggle against communism”?

Firstly, it doesn’t sound as nice. Secondly, it still doesn’t adequately explain the Cold War. As I’ve already put forth previously, the Cold War was mainly a struggle between the two dominant global powers. Our aims were not directed toward communism, but a specific country and its influence. Communism was simply a way for us to – incorrectly or not – gauge the Soviet Union’s influence. When the Cuban Revolution heralded in a communist government, we didn’t particularly fear the tiny island nation. What we did fear was a Soviet presence in Cuba, and neighboring countries falling prey to the red menace.

Or let us say, for the sake of argument, that all of this is false. That the United States truthfully was interested specifically in repressing an economic system based on equality and fairness. The question of whether calling it a war is accurate still begs to be answered. And lest I get bogged down in specifics of the Cold War, I’ll now switch gears to the current “war on drugs.”

The phrase “War on Drugs” was coincidentally(?) coined by a president who was also in office during the height of the Cold War – Richard Nixon. It refers to the government’s efforts to minimize the use and trafficking of illicit drugs. Nixon created the cabinet-level Drug Czar position, and poured money and resources into the effort, money which has been pouring in ever since, in ever increasing amounts. 2

Now once again, only by taking a fairly generous definition of war does this catchphrase make any sense at all. Indeed, in the scheme of things, the war against drugs is one of the more benign wars. Surely no amount of sophistication can create smart bombs that will target drug users. In a traditional war, it is easier to identify your enemies. They typically live in the same place, or look a certain way, or hold a certain common belief. The category of drug user is fairly transient in the scheme of things. Additionally, similar to communism, no amount of effort can completely rid the world of drug users.

If you want to create a systematic campaign to reduce drug usage, or indoctrinate people with capitalist tendencies, surely war is not the best word to use. Only by stretching the definition can you properly use the word. So why is war used in these instances?

Many times, it’s used because of the strength of the word, and the images that it conveys. When you wage a war against drugs, you’re “getting tough on them.” Calling these things “wars” is for the peoples enjoyment. So at the base of the matter, waging a war against intangible objects has a positive impact on the population. They expect that things will get done against poverty, against crime, against AIDS, and so on.

Rephrasing “struggles” as “wars” also simplifies and cloaks the conflict. The US was not invading countries willy-nilly. It was the War on Communism. It didn’t matter that Allende was democratically elected, and that Pinochet was a military dictator – the former was a communist while the latter was our boy. 3

Any transgressions that can fall under the so-called “war on communism” can be explained away and justified as part of that war. Using war rhetoric gives those in power a firmer grasp on control – things that they might not have been able to get away with previously, can be excused because the nation is at war. The McCarthy hearings spring to mind as one such domestic issue that was brought under the umbrella of the larger “war on communism.”

While the War on Communism was really a war against the Soviet Union, and the War on Drugs actually an empty buzz phrase for a simple governmental policy that got out of hands, there are other instances of wars against intangible things being honestly treated as wars. And with that, I turn to the current War on Terrorism.

The term “war on terror” first came into use in Britain, as they dealt with Jewish attacks in the British Mandate of Palestine in the late 1940′s. After the state of Israel was created, Israelis began using the term in response to Palestinian attacks. The use of the term began to be picked up by Reagan in the 80′s in various speeches and such. However, it wasn’t until after the September 11, 2001 attacks, that the War on Terrorism formerly began. 4

On September 20, George W. Bush addressed the Congress and citizens of the United States and said that, “our war on terror begins with al-Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.” 4

This was the beginning of a concentrated effort to create a sustained campaign against “terror.” This campaign kicked off with the invasion of a sovereign nation, Afghanistan. Afghanistan had been under the control of, among others, the principal architects of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It was not that much of a stretch in the War on Terrorism.

However, where to go from there?

There were not any other targets as easy to justify and attack as Afghanistan. In preparation for this, Bush continued with the war rhetoric, essentially dumbing down any dialogue in terms of the struggle against terrorism. On November 6, 2001, he stated that in the War on Terrorism, “you’re either with us or against us.” 5

In reality, it was not quite as black and white. Even if it was a traditional war between two nations, it would not be that simplistic. But with a war against “terrorism,” limiting the distinctions between us and them was simply asinine. However it succeeded in broadening the scope and authority of the War on Terror. Using these blinders, the invasion of another sovereign nation was justified.

The so-called “war on terrorism” is the most problematic of any of these ambiguous wars that I’ve so far examined. This is because it shares characteristics between the previous wars on communism and drugs, creating a unique situation which is even more questionable than anything I’ve looked at yet.

Unlike the war on communism, there is no principle opposing state to focus on. At this point, there isn’t even a particular group or organization that the United States is fixated on. And unlike the war on drugs, this new war on terror has been principally framed internationally, with little thought given to domestic terrorism (indeed, only when the suspects are Muslim immigrants does the government take notice).

However the War on Terrorism does have one large, glaring similarity to the War on Communism. That is, that it is principally a military war, waged through military means.

This would not necessarily be that large of a problem, if terrorism was synonymous with some distinct opposing faction, such as the Soviet Union was with communism. However, George W. Bush has repeatedly framed the War on Terror in a global context, even if it has so far limited itself within a single area or religion. 5

With such a vague phrase, we must ask ourselves – what exactly are we battling? “Terrorism”? As defined by whom? Today the word is thrown around without any concrete definition. Before we try to understand how the term could possibly become so entrenched in our society, we must first try to define it.

So far, the War on Terrorism has been directed at anti-American sentiment in the Middle East. Although Saddam Hussein had no visible ties to outside terrorist organizations, the invasion of Iraq is strung along as part of the War on Terrorism, and not some exclusive act of aggression on the part of the United States.

Thus the connotation that terrorism currently carries, when we are looking at the War on Terror, is defined as anti-American / anti-western groups – apparently with no regard for actual transgressions (witness Hussein). Whether or not this is limited wholly to Islam and the Middle East, has yet to be seen. Thus far, it seems as such, although fiery rhetoric against North Korea has occasionally cropped up as well.

So we have defined terrorism for the purpose of waging a war against it. This definition is murky and insubstantial, but it’s the best that can be done at the moment. Now the question becomes, who would support such a campaign? To understand why anyone would, is to understand why war rhetoric is used.

By describing it as a War on Terror, Bush can justify actions that would not be supported in peacetime. This includes a great variety of actions, both on the home front and abroad. By saying that we are at war, he can justify abuses to his own citizens that commonly happen during war time – but more on this later.

By calling it a war, the propaganda machine springs into motion. During a time of war, we have been socialized to tenaciously support our government. This is not particularly unique to America or the west – no country has any interest in creating citizens who question the government. It’s self-defeating. By calling this new campaign a “war,” the citizens become more complaisant toward military actions, even willingly cheering them on. Rabid nationalism is the goal in reviving war associations. And this latest “war” has been extremely successful in whipping up the public.

Today’s litmus test for fanatical nationalism in my opinion, is the bumper sticker. And in the past several years there has been a huge increase in all things “patriotic.” The amount of ribbons and bumper stickers with nauseating one-liners borders on the obscene. “Support our troops,” “These colors don’t run,” “Never forget,” and perhaps most disturbing of all – “Freedom isn’t free.” Until finally, it’s at the point where if you don’t have something along these lines plastered over your car, you are viewed with suspicion. This mob mentality is disturbing, but once again, not particularly surprising. It simply illustrates a successful propaganda campaign, combined with successful childhood socialization.

Now, would this same fervor be created if we weren’t “at war”? If instead of the grand War Against Terrorism, we arbitrarily invaded two countries who couldn’t really defend themselves anyway – would this create the same sort of unflagging patriotism? Who knows, but it’s doubtful that things would have grown to such the extent as they have.

Thus far I have defined terrorism in this current context. I have looked at some of the reasoning behind the warfare rhetoric. Until now, there have been no problems with calling it a War on Terror – besides ethical and moral issues that arise, which don’t typically play into international politics anyway. Now, I will attempt to identify the pitfalls of using concrete terms in a non-concrete setting.

One intended outcome of calling the current campaign a “war,” is that the government can get away with limiting the rights of its citizens. In every war, the federal government – as well as the executive branch – gains power and limits common freedoms. During World War 2, the detention of Americans of Japanese heritage is commonly cited. This time around, it is Muslims. But the large sticking point, is that we aren’t truthfully engaged in a large-scale war campaign. To say that Afghanistan or Iraq are on the scope necessary to justifiably limit personal freedoms domestically, is simply a falsehood. Yet by wrapping our current actions abroad in fiery war rhetoric, the government is able to accomplish many measures traditionally seen only during times of war. Legislation such as the PATRIOT ACT severely compromises large swaths of the constitution. Even more disconcerting, is the amount of related legislation piggy-backing on totally irrelevant bills. Yet because we are “at war,” the severe curbing of civil liberties is dismissed as necessary, and even encouraged in some circles. The problem, once again, is that we aren’t truly at war. And so there is no time table to roll back these gross affronts to constitutional – as well as international – rights. Japanese-Americans were released after World War Two. But if the War on Terror is everlasting, when will today’s Arab-American detainees be released? Or those of other nationalities, for that matter?

One problem with identifying this campaign against “terror” as a war, is the indefinite length of the campaign. This problem is already being brought up in popular society. Those who weren’t whipped up quite enough, are beginning to raise questions – how long will troops be stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq? How much money will be spent in this War on Terror? How long will we be told to stockpile duck tape and follow a color-coded terror system, telling us how frightened to be on any particular day of the week?

Traditional wars have had easily distinguishable beginnings and ends. Today’s War on Terror, for all intensive purposes, began shortly after September 11, 2001. But its end is indeterminate. What constitutes final victory in a war against terrorism? The elimination of terror itself, as an act, as a political tool? If that is the true conclusion to the current War on Terror, then will the war ever be truly finished?

The problems with wars on intangible objects are many fold – from simply being misleading to downright depravity. One cannot wage a war against drugs in the most traditional sense, because it is a lifestyle decision and requires more than brute force. One cannot truthfully wage a war against communism, because it’s a belief, not a place. And one cannot wage a war against terrorism, because it is not readily destroyed by violence. Indeed, if anything violence simply breeds more “terrorism” – regardless of your definition.

If something is wrapped in the auspicious wording of warfare, it must be looked at carefully and with a critical eye. It might just be idyllic, thoughtless wording. Or it might have been selected specifically for all of the connotations and expectations that “war” brings with it.

—

Sources

1. Mamdani, Mahmood. Pantheon Books. 2004. Good Muslim, Bad Muslim
2. Wikipedia Encyclopedia. 10/11/04. War on Drugs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

3. Wikipedia Encyclopedia. 10/11/04. Chilean coup of 1973.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_coup_in_Chile

4. Wikipedia Encyclopedia. 10/11/04. War On Terrorism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_terrorism

5. CNN. “’You are either with us or against us’”. November 6th, 2001.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror