This blog is an interpretation of an article which appeared in Foreign Affairs, Jan/Feb 2002 Vol. 81, issue 1, written by Michael Howard.
This blog deals with the consequences of the Bush administration’s policy in naming the aftermath of the 911 attacks as “The War on Terror”. Four small words, it outlines, very clearly, the future stance the administration will take. It is the defining headline of the public relations campaign with which the US will engage its new enemy.
It was Colin Powell that first articulated the “War against Terrorism.” Michael Howard argues that the very use of the word “war” was to instill in the American public, (amongst others) a “war psychosis”; an expectation in the media and the public consciousness of all the things they associate with recent American wars, namely spectacular military action and quick, decisive results. These expectations were to prove a great hindrance in engaging an enemy that was never going to be subdued easily or quickly.
The British had engaged similar enemies in Palestine, Cyprus, Ireland and Malaysia. Instead of labeling them “wars”, the British engaged their foe under the heading of “emergencies”, which, while allowing their police and intelligence services enormous powers, they could still operate under a peacetime framework of civilian authority. The engagement of a terrorist enemy requires the winning of “hearts and minds”, the persuasion of the population that these terrorists are criminals rather than freedom fighters. This requires secrecy, intelligence, ruthlessness, covert action and, above all, patience. These objectives were rendered unobtainable by the media frenzy following the declaration of war on the terrorists.
The elevation of Osama bin Laden to the status of a centrally focused villain is seen as another public relations slip. Osama is now in a win/win situation. If he is killed he is a martyr, if he escapes, he is a hero to his cause. Perhaps the administration thought it necessary to elevate him to this position to gain support for action in Afghanistan, but why would the US need to garner support after the events of 911? Howard suggests the US needs an honorable disengagement, something that would satisfy the tabloids, so the US can get down to the laborious, out of public eye, counter terror operation necessary to defeating the terrorists.
Excellent point!
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your point about the buzzword “war”. It is indeed a very strong word, especially in collaboration with “terror”. Inevitably, such words have, and still continue to ensure the headlines in every news channel, radio station and newspapers at global level. The interesting thing in here is that the US still capable of presenting the notions of military threat, use of force, power politics as the only means of achieving (its) national security. Theoretically speaking, the state-centric(realist) approach to security in the USA, that places words like “war”, “military capabilities” and “power politics” as a core terms in their political agenda, ensures US dominance in the public domain. However, scholars have long began challenging the state-centric approach by shifting the focus on human being, where by including other words such as poverty, human right, climate change, economics, oppressive political regimes, education, development etc., as an emerging buzzwords. Inevitably, those words have been put forward as consequence of the realization of the complex, dynamic and interdependence nature of the contemporary world we live in. Arguably, issues associated with those new words are global, therefore requiring global solution. It is most appropriate, in this sense, to highlight the important role of public and cultural diplomacy. PDP should serve as platform of mutual understanding and promoting collaborative action towards tackling those global issues. As a future IR specialist, we should not only be concern with what America’s next move will be, but also examine the new buzzwords that if left unnoticed could potentially have more catastrophic consequences to the human kind as a whole, than US’s “war on terror”.