war/war on

Richard E. Norred (Los Angeles Times) wonders "if we as a nation can couch any issue except in terms of war." We've seen the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the cultural wars, and the mommy wars. Ross Glover (Collateral Language) says, "'The War on—' plays on our competitive heartstrings like a football cheer. 'Yes,' we seem to respond, 'fight the good fight, O fearless President, fight the war for us, fight the war for the good of humanity, but most importantly just fight.' It matters little that most fights end up only wasting time, money, and lives, or that every time we begin fighting, conditions get worse rather than better." "Obviously, it makes no sense to wage war on a tactic or on an abstract noun.... That this usage could be accepted so widely attests to the fact that our political vocabulary, along with our general political culture, has become extraordinarily debased" (Andrew Levine, Political Keywords). How debased? It's likely that the national familiarity with "war on" language kept us from realizing after 9/11 the critical importance of "the decision to describe the attacks in the language of 'war' rather than as a criminal act" (Brent Cunningham, "The Rhetoric Beat," Columbia Journalism Review) "so that by Sept. 13 the assumption that America was 'at war' with all of that idea's sobering implications, was irrevocably established in the national consciousness. Polls released on September 12 indicated that more than 90% of respondents considered the attacks as an 'act of war.'" Had 9/11 been described instead as "mass murder," the response would have fallen under the domain of police investigation, criminal justice, and the safeguards of law (as correctly happened in the 2013 Boston marathon killings). Cunningham proceeds to lay out the logic that followed: once talk of war is established, a national enemy must be identified. The invasion of Iraq was the solution. Heretofore, the U.S. and other countries have treated terrorist attacks as a breach of civil and criminal law—the idea is to deny the perpetrators legitimacy and thereby defuse the political power of their actions. Investigations, trials, convictions were the primary response to Pan Am Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988, and embassies bombed in east Africa in 1998. Careless use of "war" or "war on" has consequences. Rephrase such phrases to accurately describe the issues. And why is going to "war" so attractive? Arthur Silber says that "a huge swath of our economy is now devoted to preparing for war, making war, and cleaning up after war. To one degree or another, most members of Congress are beholden to the economic powers that drive the obsessive concern with war, and its cornucopia of economic opportunity. Both parties are enmeshed in the War State, and the current corporatist warmaking apparatus devours almost all those who go into public service. Until this intricate and complex system is altered, nothing else will change, except in comparatively superficial ways." See also military language, war on terror.