|
January 14, 2010
The "war on terror" is a clever little phase.
Canadian David Frum says the war on terror is "a useful
term" because it's vague enough to justify a variety of
reactions. Frum is a former advisor to President Bush and
originator of another useful term, "axis of evil." He admits
that it's useful because it's vague. "Calling it a war is
imprecise in relation to the great World Wars," he told CBC
radio.
The term is not just imprecise, it's meaningless. My Oxford
Canadian Dictionary defines war as "armed hostilities
between nations." And terror is a state of mind; defined as
extreme fear or dread.
If the term has any sensible meaning, it must be a metaphor
for overcoming fear. But that's not how it's used.
The word "war" is used loosely. Our government tells us that
we are at "war in Afghanistan." How can that be when
Afghanistan has not threatened us with hostile acts? The
9/11 attackers came from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan. It
can only mean that we are at war with another country in
Afghanistan.
We aren't. Canadians are battling the Taliban who are mainly
Afghanis. Since we don't want the Taliban to reform
government it would be more honest to say that Canada is on
a political mission, not military.
Maybe our government defines war as the nineteenth century
military theorist Carl von Clausewitz who said that "war is
a continuation of politics by other means."
Some honesty in language would be refreshing. Canadians
would be less baffled by our presence in Afghanistan if they
were told why we are there.
But honesty is not always convenient. Our Minister of
Defense, Peter MacKay, prefers the war on terror because it
conjures up hordes of terrorists at our doorstep. The label
of war is useful in mobilizing public opinion: if we are at
war then any critics of the conflict are sympathizers of the
"enemy." In MacKay's war, opposition is equal to subversion
of the state and denigration of our proud and women who are
making the supreme sacrifice to defend Canada.
Canada's former defence minister was not as fast and loose
with war. As a former Brigadier-General with 30 years
experience in Canada's army, Gordon O'Connor knew that war
has a precise military definition. He told a Commons Defense
Committee: "We have to conduct operations where we engage
them with firepower," he said and added, "I don't consider
this war." His honesty cost him his job.
|
George Orwell argued that slovenly language leads to foolish
thought and the converse; foolish thoughts lead to slovenly
language.
The war on terror has been a useful means of obscuring
actual intent, befuddling thought, and defining terrorists
to be just about anyone. But the conflict in Afghanistan in
the name of war has been a disaster. Our occupation of that
country has given the Taliban and Al Qaeda reason to exist.
One decade ago, Al Qaeda was a small group of about 1,000
people but now it is a global network. Insurgents have been
apprenticed while fighting the most well-equipped forces in
the world with nothing more than improvised roadside bombs.
Now they are spreading to Yemen and beyond.
The war on terror begat Al Qaeda v2.0, says Janice Stein,
Director of the Munk Centre for International Studies at the
University of Toronto. She likens the new, improved Al Qaeda
to a "franchise operation."
Some Al Qaeda franchises are more successful than others.
The suicide subway bombers in London killed 56 and injured
700. They were not part of some alien horde; they were
citizens of Great Britain.
The London bombings were correctly investigated as a
criminal act, just as the attacks of 9/11 should have been.
Instead of flying off madly in all directions, the Brits
solved the case with solid police investigation.
The war on terror has been misleading and misguided because
of the political and military direction it indicates. All it
has done is given a radical rump of Islam a credibility they
would have not otherwise enjoyed.
A new decade calls for new language. President Obama has
made a good start by declaring the war on terror to be
obsolete.
Clarity in Canadian language and thought would renew public
interest in politics. It would usher in an era in which
political language clarifies concepts rather than
obfuscating them.
David Charbonneau is the owner of Trio Technical.
He can be reached at dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca
|
