Normblog – ‘the weblog of Norman Geras’ – is often quite good and I read it when I get the chance, but this recent post of his was pretty bad. Norman says that those who, like Shirley Williams, dislike the phrase ‘war on terror’ have “trouble coming up with compelling reasons for their dislike” of that phrase.
Specifically, Norman argues, crime is not exclusively a civil affair: actions against criminals may include actions of war. I think Norman’s making some sort of synecdochal error here. Wars are always fought between political entities and hence in a war there are always multiple actors – both leaders and followers – on both sides. This has major implications for considerations of criminality and legitimacy.
All actors in a war (it’s assumed) are willing to use violence; that is to do, in wartime, things which in peacetime would be considered criminal. This said, some may do things which even in the special circumstances of war will be considered criminal. These are war criminals, and they may well include the leaders of a side. Other war leaders may be considered criminal for things they did before war explicitly began. Perhaps their involvement in starting war is their crime. Nonetheless, when you’re fighting a war leader (criminal or otherwise) you’re very likely not fighting him in person; you’re fighting his army. Your opposition to Tojo, say, may be founded in his criminality but your use of violence is legitimised by the fact that millions on Tojo’s side – some of whom won’t ever be thought criminal – present a threat to you which can only be countered by use of violence. After all, if it were just Tojo, you’d send in the police. The police can’t get to Tojo because of his army? Frustrating, yes, but not in itself justification for violence.
And so – the standard criticism goes – use of the phrase ‘war on terror’ suggests that we are under threat in a way which justifies violence, as in a war. If we disagree that this is so, then naturally we won’t want to hear the phrase ‘war on terror’ used in political discourse by way of presenting options for action. Our situation has been described incorrectly. The ‘war on terror’ is only a metaphor? (I think Norman has been misled by this one, somehow.) Maybe. But then, I can take it, so is the call to send in the air force. Count me with Shirley Williams.
Good old Norm is somebody who thought the War on Iraq was not only a good idea, but a moral crusade analog to the fight against fascism, so you can see his confusion about The War Against Terror.
The phrase “War on Terror” is a misnomer.
You can’t have a war on terror, because terror is a tactic. It’s like having a war on trench warfare. You have a war against another entity – person or country.
This is of course an upshot of television. Before TV, when reading was much more common, people were used to proposition – all writing is proposition after proposition – and would have noticed the phrase made no sense.
Television however is about the presentation of imagery. Imagery does not propose or assert; it merely *is*. You can like an advert, you can dislike an advert, but you can’t agree or disagree with it, because it never actually makes any propositions or assertations. It’s just smiley happy people.
As such, our culture isn’t really equipped any more to notice that these sorts of phrases don’t make sense, because people just aren’t looking at them in that way any more.
It’s just a convenient handle and everybody knows what it means. The “Cold” war didn’t make much sense either, that was a war against communism this one is against islamism – but nobody wants to say that do they