Attention all enthusiastic participants in, and perpetuators of, the discourse of “terror”– your one-time leader Donald Rumsfeld has now abandoned you! Writing in the NYT today, Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker note the following:
- In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation’s senior military officer have spoken of “a global struggle against violent extremism” rather than “the global war on terror,” which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.
Well, it only took these guys about 46 months to recognize their mistake… And meantime, they’ve used the misleadingly constructed concept of the “Global War on Terror” to jerk Americans and others into two major wars and scores of smaller military commitments around the world.
So for those like to be “up-to-date” with the latest conceptual tools coming out of that bastion of intellectual enlightenment, the Pentagon (major irony alert there, folks)… What, you will be asking, is the new discourse of choice?
… And the winner is…
The discourse of “civilization”, as presented by Rumsfeld last Friday, when he addressed an audience at the US Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland. According to that NYT report, at that event,
- Mr. Rumsfeld described America’s efforts as it “wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization.”
The use of the discourse of “civilization” to mask the true content of strategies of global domination is, sadly, as old as globe-girdling colonialism itself. The British used it in Tasmania as they exterminated the indigenous peoples there… The Germans used it in South West Africa as they did likewise… The Spanish used it in Central America as they…
And now, Donald Rumsfeld.
You might think that an administration that has brought us the kinds of abuses that continue in detention centers and military prisons from Guantanamo to Bagram to Baghdad might be ashamed to even mention the word “civilization”??
But no. These guys apparently lack any capacity for either shame or self-awareness. A sad day for “civilization”, I would say.
“America’s efforts as it ‘wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization.’ ”
If you plese, could someone kindly direct me to the vomitorium?
Brings to mind the famous exchange between Gandhi and a reporter:
Reporter: What do you think of Western civilization?
Gandhi: I think it a good idea!
No, Rick, I think Gandhi’s answer was, “I think it would be a good idea.”
Ghandi’s comments came to mind for me too.
Newfoundland also wiped out it’s native population. And America’s own natives were seen as “uncivilized”, and mostly wiped out.
Rummy and ilk are not releasing the photos of the Geneva Convention violations in Abu Ghraib because….. that would be a Geneva Convention violation.
”Reporter: What do you think of Western civilization?”
Correct Me Please, But I Heard This
In early 1990, in the Pentagon the, Balk employees had separate Toilet from the White employees!!!
Yeas, Its Ideal
> If you plese, could someone kindly direct me
> to the vomitorium?
I don’t know, Shirin – from a marketing point of view, I think this is definitely a step up.
“global war on terror” = GWOT (awkward, unfriendly)
“global struggle against violent extremism” = G-SAVE (much better!)
See? Now *that’s* a motto that we can sell. Fly those flags, people! The USA is spearheading the G-SAVE operation!
Don’t you feel better now?
You have a point, d-sol-d. And GWOT also had the disadvantage that people like me could believe it stood for Gigantic Waste of Time.
Uh oh Shirin I think you’d better warn any Americans you know to leave the USA immediately. Rummy’s obviously worried that president Cheney’s
profit statements aren’t as fat as they could be and is planning on invading the USA so that lots of juicy reconstruction contracts can be given to Halliburton.
Hot News Flash:
Forget it Shirin just warn any Americans living in Texas to leave. I’ve been told by my spies that the USA is going to invade Texas first.
This makes sense Texas meets all the criteria:
1) They talk funny.
2) They wear stuff on their heads.
3) Fundamentalists live there.
4) They’ve got lots of sand.
5) They’ve got oil.
6) They’ve got camels (in Houston zoo I’ve seen ’em).
Although I share the general cynicism, I think we should look at this development (undoubtedly the work of Karen Hughes) as generally positive. Of course there is no real change in attitude among the Bush crowd, but the change in rhetoric is a tacit admission that people aren’t buying the old explanations anymore. Any shift away from militaristic lingo will nudge people at the margins to think in other directions. That’s good. If they stop talking about their imaginary “global war on terror,” then the real war in Iraq will have to be justified on its own merits – of which there are none. That’s good too. Finally, as the language becomes more abstract and less confrontational, it starts to lose attention-grabbing effectiveness. Karen H. knows this, of course, so why make the change? Because the administration has its back against the wall, that’s why. Their foreign policy is a complete failure, and they know it. They are trying to find ways to back out gracefully. We should allow them to do so.
John C,
I agree that the Bush administration has now its back against the wall. May be that they are just trying to divert attention from Iraq with that new formulation ?
Nevertheless, I find this discourse concerning the enemies of civilization to be very alarming and dangerous. It verges on racism and isn’t so far of the theory of the supremacy of the white race. It is more dangerous because that does also mean a witches hunt inside of every Western country.. a hunt which justifies every act, like the killing of Mezenes in London, only because he had a dark skin.
There’s a new Mideast blog which comments on this:
http://aboulhol.blogspot.com/
Correct Me Please, But I Heard This
In early 1990, in the Pentagon the, Balk employees had separate Toilet from the White employees!!!
Though I don’t know anything specific about this, I think it’s fair to say that it can’t be true.
John C., is there any evidence that Bush has changed his basic mindset?
No Preference – No, I said that “there is no real change in attitude among the Bush crowd.” The point is, their *behavior* is changing. They will never admit they were wrong – we should not expect that.
Well,
Well, the new language didn’t last for a long time : on the 3d of August speach, Bush used the “war on terror” phrase not least than five times. The NewYork Times writes :
“But administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy. At the same time, Mr. Bush, by some accounts, told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”
Read the complete report of the NYTimes President makes it clear : Phrase is “war on terror”
Yeah. I guess W. couldn’t get comfortable calling himself a “struggle” President.