Tuesday, December 27, 2016

The War of Words

I wrote the following as part of my free lance position at Opslens. Frequent readers of this blog will notice how many of my points builds upon what I've wrote. For those that deal with radical libertarians and others the first part about the word "war monger" is especially needed. Because its not as though I've ever been called a warmonger, the term has been used with reckless abandon, and those kind of people like to compare their opponents to Nazis, or Gadianton Robbers as a way to avoid substantive cross examination of their positions.]
In the battle of competing ideas sometimes words can be the first casualty. The abuse of the word establishment was so rampant during the election that I joked I should have started a restaurant with that name so I could get free advertising.  All joking aside, misapplying words as pejoratives can muddle the debate, obscure real threats, or become a tool of hysteria. 

Many of these words aren’t necessarily used with ill intent, but as a way to illicit an emotional response and compensate for poor arguments. For example, anti-war advocates like to use the word war monger to insult people or positions they don’t like without having to engage the relative merits of the proposed action. In trying to ask them for a definition I have never received a clear definition except one who supports war. But plenty of Americans generally oppose war while recognizing that terrorists, dictators, mad men, and those that want to use weapons of mass destruction should be stopped. That desire doesn’t warrant the insulting term war monger. Their misuse of warmonger means that anti-war advocates don’t have to answer for the inaction they propose which allows genocides to occur.

Moreover, there are policies and positions that sometimes run the risk of war that actually support peace.  America for example, continues to support Freedom of Navigation patrols in the South China Sea which are attacked as war mongering and “picking a fight” with China. But supporting freedom of the seas prevents a violent free for all in the region where disputes over territory would be settled by those most willing and able to use force.  This applies to Syria as well. Hillary Clinton proposed a no fly zone which was roundelay attacked by Trump and isolationists.  It’s true that a no fly zone carries the risk of war, but it has many benefits with great humanitarian value. A no fly zone or safe area will help the millions of displaced persons and increasing numbers of persecuted minority groups, some of which have been turned into sex slaves. It would prevent the use of chemical weapons and other war crimes by the Assad regime, and it has a great chance to weaken ISIS and other radical groups. But instead of engaging the merits of a no fly zone, Freedom of Seas Operations, possible NATO operations, and so many other items, critics would rather launch rhetorical bombs that shut down discussion. 

Terrorist or Freedom Fighter

One of the biggest misuses of words in the modern world, and one of the biggest threats America faces is that of terrorism.  It’s very popular to repeat the cliché that one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This argument was used often during the war in Iraq to denigrate American military intervention abroad and simultaneously bolster the insurgents fighting America.  In the sense that words themselves are weapons, this is entirely true.  Various revolutionary groups, terrorists, and the governments that oppose them can use the terms to either bolster their position or undermine their opponents. Yet, despite the manipulation of words, and despite some of the disputes over the definition of terrorism, it’s still entirely possible to tell the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist.  Behaviors like donning a uniform, discrimination between military and nonmilitary targets, discernment against or deliberate targeting of civilians, and declarations of war from recognized heads of state, makes it very easy to distinguish between George Washington and Abu Al Baghdadi. There is some overlap between insurgents and terrorism, but it’s not nearly as indistinguishable as the purveyors of the cliché would lead you to believe. 

This means we should be very careful in the words we use in discussing policy. Policy makers debated over whether to call anti-American forces in Iraq “insurgents” or “terrorists.”   (In truth it was a complex mixture of both.) Many Americans felt a great deal of frustration when the sectarian conflict in Iraq was labeled the demoralizing term “civil war.” It explains why the surge led by General Petraeus was labeled an escalation by some critics who were trying to invoke the ghoul of Vietnam. A blockade during the Cuban Missile crisis would have been an act of war, but a quarantine of the island prescribed the same action without the accompanying baggage.  In the prelude to the Bosnia deployment, each side for and against it, avoided the term “genocide” to evade the treaty obligations associated with it. In all of these debates the very words used and choosing one that stigmatized tried to shape the contours of the debate in a duplicitous way.


This is most important when it comes to matters of jihad. The strict definition of the word is rather innocuous. It means to assume a burden or struggle against unrighteousness. This is little different than the Christian phrase to take up your cross.  But many terrorists are called some variation of radical jihadists. This leads to a superficial debate where one side argues that war mongers are unfairly targeting peaceful religionists. On the other side foreign policy hawks accuse their opponents of trying to deny the existence of a radical threat. The reality is a bit more complicated. There a hundreds of millions of Muslims around the word that peacefully struggle against unrighteousness.  But if even only 1% of Muslims are radical that means thousands of potential attackers. The difficulty comes when the radicals deliberately claim the peaceful definition for themselves knowing that many in the media would like to call those warning against militant groups racists or islamophobic.  The discussion then gets shut down between the various sides using contested and sometimes manipulated definitions.  

These few examples could be expanded to included words like establishment, liberal, neocon, and even moderate. While they might sound nice and authoritative many of these words are used as personal insults or to obscures sound assessments.  Terrorists and jihadists call themselves freedom fighters or peaceful to avoid arousing a vigorous response from their targets.  The media call foreign policy hawks racists or warmongers to stigmatize their position. Yet the threats remain. Hopefully those that want to formulate substantive policy can use words for their clinical precision and not their value as a pejorative. 

[Thanks for reading. I work as a free lance author. If you found value in this work please consider subscribing or making a lump sum donation using the paypal buttons below.] 

No comments: