Skepticum

Why is it that every time someone from the US Government opens his or her mouth warfare terms come out of it? The government has trained us to either ignore the war rhetoric, or feel patriotic, or cringe at it. I’m one who cringes with every repetition or mention of any concept that has to do with war.

I may notice the war rhetoric more than others because I spent my graduate years studying US media coverage of war, at the heart of which stands the Judeo-Christian narrative of good versus evil. Classical mythological narratives of opposites permeate how we consume war coverage in the United States, which is frequently reflected also in Bush’s discourse of “us versus them”–’us’ the winsome democracy of the west, and ’them,’ the uncivilized, unchristian eastern folk who need the western world to show them the path to democracy.

This discourse type has been increasingly successful within the United States, it won support for the war in Iraq, and it continues to win support in certain circles for other wars we’re waging. These days we tend to use it for most instances when there is a perceived challenge to the moral stance of our government. The most recent example comes in Condi Rice’s comments today, that “nations must fight climate change like terrorism.”

A CNN article paraphrased Condi’s address at the Global Climate Change Conference, “that countries around the world must work together to combat climate change, much as they cooperate against terror and the spread of disease.”

I can identify a few problems with these war-friendly statements:

1. Every “war on something” we start turns into a debacle. War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terrorism and now “war on climate change”…. Add “war” to anything and it’s like the Madden curse.
2. Every time the US Government gets reminded by the International community of their failures, they turn their backs on these forums and create their own forum, stand at its pulpit and declare war on something. Reminds we of many other leaders who decided they made the game and played it too. Usually these leaders ended up being called dictators, tyrans, and madmen, but that’s just a historical opinion and it can be ignored just like all the other historical insights we’ve been ignoring.
3. When members of our government talk from this pulpit they created to spite other forums, they always send a hypocritical message of togetherness–”countries around the world must work together to combat ’you name it.’” The problem is that the other countries were united toward the goal, then they slapped our wrist when we didn’t commit to “working together.” This game is called avoiding responsibility and placing the burden on others. Whenever someone uses the term “we” it means, “I” don’t want to do it, so why don’t “we”?

I am not trying to promote anti-global warming ideas here, so please don’t go down that discussion path. I’m merely saying I cringe when I hear war rhetoric. It is over-used and mis-used. It is meant to show the world the United States government is serious and decisive, but it only manages to appear dictatorial.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS