Andy’s comment is well taken. In political persuasion, the need is to find a phrase that conveys a clear picture with the simplest of terms. That is why “war on terror” became so popular with the Administration. However, my (and Martha Crenshaw’s and most other terrorism experts’) objection is to the term, war. War gives the impression of a defined enemy and a final outcome of absolute victory. In the absence of these two essential elements, we may try to find another term which is less “inspiring” but is far more accurate of the situation at hand. For me, “battle against terrorism” or “struggle with the terrorists” are, perhaps, closer to the reality. What do you think?
posted by Dipak K. Gupta at 11:18 PM
1 Comments:
Obviously the administration has chosen its words carefully. By defining an extensive network as a singular enemy, the goal of victory seems far more feasible. The question is of language and titles, how can we be accurate? For example, in the global south, the Mexican-American War is called the War of Northern Aggression. Titles depend on perspective, and it is my opinion that this administration fully believes it is fighting one enemy with the purpose of complete eradication. I recently spoke with a professor at SDSU who believes that one day the "terrorists will be eliminated completely and we will be forever grateful to President Bush." I do think that "battle against terrorists" and "struggle against terrorism" are more accurate names for the current situation, but it is undeniable people will continue to see this issue in black and white terms, and until that ends, we're sticking with war.
Post a Comment
<< Home