War in Iraq: A War with words *

2007-07-06 3:45 p.m.

“War is nothing but a continuation of political intercourse, with a mixture of other means,”
Carl von Clausewitz [1]

“God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East." President George Bush [2]

If I understand correctly, the former famous phrase means much more than at face value. But let’s take the literal meaning that war is an extension of a political aim. That fits it very well with the current war we know of very well today, the Global War on Terror.

I will focus just on Iraq for the moment. To begin with, the invasion of Iraq was after all to achieve a political end; the end that the neo-conservatives wished to obtain. Pre-emptive action was action that occurred, but to pre-empt what was the very question. Clausewitz used the word discourse, which is a powerful tool, especially in gathering support. It is not the best tool thought, and has never been a tool to promote unity and loyalty.

Is the Iraq War a war to achieve a political aim? To put the question in a different light, has any twentieth century battle ever been non political? The answer is a huge no, and so we move to the next question: How do you gather support for war, however politicized the background may be? One common answer would be propaganda and the speech component in discourse is the tool.

What were the reasons for the Iraq War? That Saddam Hussein was in gross violations of UN resolutions and hiding stuff from UN inspectors? Is that a case to stir the public? Not really. Next one is more “convincing”: That Saddam Hussein is building WMDs to sell to terrorists groups which he is harbouring. These are the terrorists who want to harm our way of life.

Ok, we’ve been attacked by a terrorist and by working out here and there we’ve made Iraq the terrorist state somehow. So at least some Americans (and other partners in the “coalition of the willing”) were convinced and we could invade. That was the thought of the neo-cons from the US government. Surprisingly, it worked. So yes the war was politicized from the start, but it appeared acceptable; there was some “reason” for it.

After “victory” was declared and all, the “reason” some how did not hold. No WMDs were found, it was hard to prove that Saddam was harbouring Al-Queda, and it was definitely known that there was no Iraqi hand directly in planning or executing the attacks on the twin towers. So there were a host of reasons, all political, to fall back on. The major one came up again, that Iraq was and is centre for the “War on Terror” and that troops need to be there to fight the insurgents who would otherwise attack America on its own soil.

An issue of nationalism which appeals to heart, but loses support if there is no tangible objective or ideal to head towards. I’m sure you are thinking it is all a picking on the mind, and yes it is, for it is an outset of political discourse. Discourse much that of language, the use of language in particular. While bordering that of any analysis of any language, it thus applies a great to political influence. Western notions of “freedom” tend to, of course, appeal much to home crowds in America, and a much lesser degree, Britain and Europe. So when you say that you freedom, which is part of your way of life, is under attack, it appeals to the heart—well in some ways. In fact, this was the major part of President Bush’s first speech after the September 11th attacks. [3]

So to galvanise and bring a whole nation together against a new enemy, you appeal to something that they might lose/be attacked on. That was expanded and used as a major part in the invasion of Afghanistan and its re-construction. Attacking Afghanistan, from another view, is a sort of justified action, it was a most definitely a terrorist-linked and infested state. This was in fact noted long before the Bush Administration came along. [4] The argument for freedom and democracy in Afghanistan was part of how the Bush Administration formed the War on Terror to be. It thus became, or made to be, the central idea of development for post-invasion Afghanistan.

Freedom or liberty, with democracy, was reinforced by the idea of Christianity, another trait of the Western world. This links to the quote above, but let us ignore its fallaciousness for this moment. The sentence is part of the discourse of Bush and to a lesser extent, that of his administrations invoking of God and Christianity. This really creates the “binary division” between the West and the “enemies” on the War on Terror. This war no doubt is also a war about ideologies, but it was made as a war of “whose-ideology-prevails” with the continued insistence that freedom and democracy would rid a country of terrorists and ensure stability.

Coming to Iraq, the administration changed its tact, leaving the issue of WMDs as the central main argument at first. Recollecting the issues leading up to the Iraq War, they were centred on the premise that Iraq had violated numerous UN Resolutions (it did, but even so, inspectors were mostly sure that there was not any WMDs around), was a threat to the Middle East and America (the threat to America was pretty doubtful, and the Middle East more threatened by Iran) and finally that Iraq was responsible for September 11th. The last reason is the final “bomb” which pulled at the heartstrings of Americans, whether or not they lost loved ones in the attacks. Since they were already so galvanised, if you state the culprit (even though he/it is not), it fuels enough resentment and anger. So looking at the typical words like “danger is to America”, “harbouring [sic] terrorists” were so similar to speeches after September 11th and during/after the attack on Afghanistan. [5] However, on the international front, it is definitely a flimsy argument that you want to free a country and promote democracy in it, so the more plausible reasons like it being a “threat” is placed down. Now, we known for almost certainty that there was hardly any strong linkage between Al-Queda and Iraq and no WMDs have been found in the country. [6] So the justification for the war has switched to that of freeing an oppressed population and eradicating Al-Queda from Iraq. And After all the changing talking, Iraq, to the Bush Administration, is still the “centre of the war on terror.”

Yes, as Richard Clarke noted, it was made the centre by President Bush. [7] With the continuous placement of Iraq as a model for Middle Eastern Democracy and the continuous harping that Al-Queda wants to base itself there, Iraq will forever be the magnet to attract terrorists. By even harping that “Iraqis should be thankful for all the United States has done for them” places not only the division within the American political system, but widens the longstanding anti-American rift world wide. [8] The surge, which he announced in his 2007 State of the Union Address, is, in a way, a last ditch effort to really turn Iraq into the stable democracy President Bush wants. [9] But by switching from reason to reason, and by keeping up a beat that does, to a large extent, turn Samuel Huntington’s theory of a “Clash of Civilizations [sic]” a reality. [10]

The Iraq conflict, thus will not settle that easily. I leave it here for now; other entries will expand more on this topic area. Suggestions are welcome.

Notes:

[1] Von Clausewitz, Carl, (General), On War, (trans. Graham, J.J., Colonel), London, 1873, Book VIII, Chapter 6, Part B
http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege2/Bk8ch06.html [accessed 06 July 2007]

[2] Bush, George W., in Al Kamen, Road Map in the Back Seat, Washington Post June 27 2003

[3] Bush, George W., in Silberstein, Sandra, 2002, War of Words: Language, Politics and 9/11, Routledge, New York, p.19

[4] Clarke, Richard A., Against All Enemies, Inside America’s War on Terror, Simon & Schuster Ltd, London, 2004, pp. 197, 274

[5] Bush, George W., 2002b, President Bush Outlines Iraqi Threat, Cincinnati, Ohio, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html

[6] 911 Commission, Overview of the Enemy, Staff Statement No. 15, 911 Commission.gov, 2004
http://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_15.pdf
[Accessed 06 July 2007]

[7] Clarke, Richard A., 2004, op cit, p.xviii

[8] Bush: Congress can't stop troop increase, CNN.com, January 14, 2007-07-06
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/14/bush.60.minutes/
[Accessed 06 July 2007]

[9] Bush, George W., President Delivers State of the Union Address [Speech], whitehouse.gov
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070123-2.html
[Accessed 06 July 2007]

[10] Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations And the remaking of world order, Simon & Schuster UK Ltd, 1996, p. 29

previous - next