|
"War on Terror"
I've been thinking about this recently. Maybe I'm thinking about rhetorical strategies and their implications in the real world because of roachboy's emphasis on analyzing them... We've had other wars on ideas. The war on drugs and war on poverty come to mind, but there is a significant difference there that I haven't explicitly thought about before. Those "wars" were meant from the beginning to be metaphorical - they were a kind of declaration of seriousness on our government's part.
Somehow the War on Terror seems to be presented in a more literal way. Not only are we using military troops in this one, but our President consistently portrays and speaks of himself as a wartime leader and talks about our nation being at way. On the other hand, it also seems like the administration is going to lengths to keep the general public from having to sacrifice much in this war, unlike other, more real wars. I can only interpret this as a sign that the "War on Terror" is not a metaphorical device, but it also is not an actual War. It's a rhetorical device which belies the very underpinnings of the Bush administration's philosophy on power.
The War on Terror marks an amorphous period that can only be declared open or closed by the government. One entity declares, defines, measures, and profits from this state - which seems to be intended to go on indefinitely. One thing that is interesting to me as I learn more about the writing of the Constitution and the debates that surrounded is that the role "Commander in Chief" was not intended to be a description that applied in any but exceptional circumstances. Hell, it wasn't settled that the US would even have a standing army for several terms. Think about how often and in how many circumstances Bush invokes his role as Commander in Chief as justification for authority or action...
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|