Truthfulness in a government “by and for the people” does not only mean that the government should not engage in outright lying to its citizens.  It also requires straightforward and honest communication as opposed to propaganda and spin.  That means truly “fair and balanced” presentation of the facts and the arguments.  The term “War On Terror” does not meet these requirements by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Oliver Wendell Holmes appreciated the power of language.  Since his day, however, we have made further inroads in understanding how our brain works and the role of language in that process.   For example, George Lakoff, an expert in cognitive linguistics, states that:

 

All words are defined relative to conceptual frames.  When you hear a word, its frame (or collection of frames) is activated in your brain…. Frames are mental structures that shape the way we see the world.  As a result, they shape the goals we seek, the plans we make, the way we act, and what counts as a good or bad outcome of our actions.  In politics our frames shape our social policies and the institutions we form to carry out policies.  To change our frames is to change all of this.  Reframing is social change. (Lakoff xv)

 

The term “War On Terror” was designed to define new frames for our national security policy and by doing so to sell the new policy. The concept of “war” evokes a massive and pervasive threat that requires granting enhanced powers to the commander in chief and the dedication of all of the nation’s resources.  The coining of the “War On terror” phrase after September 11, 2001, was an effort to transform the very specific fearful events of that day into an ill-defined, and thereby boundless, engine of fear (terror) to facilitate the achievement of various governmental objectives.  It was a Rovean device that sought to maximize the value of the 9/11 tragedy as capital to re-launch the politics of fear to new heights.  The power of the term was then further enhanced by invoking the religious language of good and evil.

 

The widespread acceptance of the term “War On Terror” has had many negative consequences.  For example, it initially facilitated the sale to the public of a new doctrine of preemptive war and then facilitated its disastrous implementation in the war in Iraq.  That war was sold as the centerpiece of the war on terror.  In fact, it had very little, if anything, to do with terrorism. It was a war that has been declared illegal by the Secretary General of the United Nations.  Yet, thousands of people have been killed and millions have been displaced.  Now, it seems that few people still believe that this war was in our national interest or consistent with our fundamental values.

 

The term and its implicit messages have been used to justify a range of governmental actions that are against our laws and our values, such as torture (now officially admitted), detention of people without any form of due process or trial, rendition, and spying on American citizens without a warrant.  These actions undermine the very essence of our legal and social structure, and any failure to correct them may well have long lasting and far-reaching consequences.

 

The term has also contributed to a basic misunderstanding of the nature of terrorism.  Unlike in case of a war, we do not confront a single “enemy.”  Rather, we face a diverse range of organizations with different sponsors and different agendas.  Creating a single identity for al Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other organizations does not aid in rational analysis and sound planning for addressing the dangers posed by these groups.  It treats them like one opponent on the battlefield rather than disparate groups of criminals that engage in the wanton killing of civilians.  It allows them to enhance their recruiting efforts by claiming that they are all involved in a war, a noble cause, that they can win against the greatest military power in the world.

 

It has also contributed to a fundamental misunderstanding of the solution to the problem.  War is a military concept, and we have adopted the false premise that military power can provide the answer.  Given our own experience as well as that of other nations before us, however, it should be clear that military power is not the most direct or most efficient way to eliminate a terrorist threat.

 

War also implies a battlefield and the killing of opposing armies.  Dealing with terrorism, on the other hand, takes place in the fields of ideas and social welfare.  The tools in this effort are the science of human relations, intelligence operations, and small strike forces.  Killing every terrorist cannot solve the problem.  Indeed, we seem to be creating multiple terrorists for every one that we kill.

 

War evokes the idea of “victory,” and we have fallen into the trap of believing that we can achieve victory in the “war on terror.”  We can, however, no more reach the goal of victory against terrorism than we can in the “war” on drugs or the “war” on crime.

 

The use of the term “War on Terror” has also contributed to enormous wastes of resources.  This includes not only the staggering costs of the mismanagement of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also the wasteful reshuffling of people and boxes on organization charts in the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.  We should instead have devoted these resources to addressing the real problem in a rational manner.

 

Given these considerations, it seems clear that the coining and use of the term “War On terror” was not the result of a drive for truthfulness by our government.  Another way that it is sometimes possible to determine whether a new “frame” is propaganda/spin or has a hidden motivation is whether it meets the test of common sense.  “Terror” is defined in the Encarta World English dictionary as “intense or overwhelming fear.” How can one prosecute a war against a feeling? The term “terrorism” is defined as “violence or the threat of violence … carried out for political purposes.”  How does one conduct a war against violence?  Terrorism is not an enemy.  It is a tactic that has political objectives.

 

Propaganda and spin are usually called upon when a government seeks to convince its citizens of an agenda that is not in the interest of its people, i.e., when straightforward reasoning would not lead the people to buy into the government’s agenda. The not so subtle motivation underlying the government’s enthusiastic adoption of term “War On Terror” is to capitalize on the “frame” of war as a massive threat to gather much greater authority and gain much wider latitude from the people in pursuing its goals of a military approach to the problem.

 

The British government has abandoned the use of this misleading and counterproductive term, and so should our government.  In his interview discussion of our relations with the Muslim world and our approach to terrorism with al-Arabiya on January 27, 2008, President Obama acknowledged that “the language we use matters.”   It does indeed, and the President and his administration should immediately stop using language such as “War on Terror.”

 

 

________________________________________________________

 

George Lakoff. Don’t think Of An Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate.  New York: Chelsea Green, 2004