NEWSPAPER COLUMNS
 ¶ Most Recent
¶ Miscellany
|
COMMENTARY
July 27, 2005
Not there yet
Acts count for more than words; which is why I have more time for the Bush administration than, I would guess, many of my readers. But words are sometimes acts, and the same administration has too often let the side down with them.Not in the way my hypothetically disagreeable reader would think, however. I had no problem with “axis of evil”, which nicely described Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, the Ayatollahs’ Iran, and Kim Jong-Il’s North Korea. They were all evil, and they did not hesitate to combine against the West; -- are, and still do, in the case of the two survivors. It was the same with Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and militarist Japan -- not three identical regimes, nor even natural allies, but each willing to help the other two against the West. The rhetoric of war is as difficult as the rhetoric of diplomacy. It is meant not only to lead one’s allies, but also confront the enemy. Ideally it will shake the enemy’s resolve, by telling him that, “We have your number.” President Bush’s rhetorical failures began when he apologized for the word “crusade” -- a perfectly serviceable term in English -- and made the rather untopical observation that, “Islam is a religion of peace.” (Pope Benedict got closer with the remark, "Certainly there are elements [of Islam] that favour peace. But there are other elements.") “Crusade” is worth an aside. I doubt the President assuaged any Muslim sensibilities by withdrawing a term they associate with the bad old days when Christians stormed Al-Quds (Jerusalem). But the point was to meet the sword, of an Islamist enemy who was already calling us Crusaders. The mealy-mouthing was taken as a sign of weakness, at an auspicious moment. “War on terror” was an exceptionally lame expression. It raised the question, “Who is Terror?” without deigning to answer it. That our civilization, indeed any civilization, is judiciously opposed to terrorism and terrorists could go without saying. But “terror” itself has no ontological immediacy (i.e. it isn’t there). It is not even a strategy, but merely a tactic; nor an end, but a means. Even we use terror to terrorize the terrorists, and either think nothing of it, or should think nothing of it under conditions of war. (What are “bunker-busters” for? What was “shock and awe”?) So that in military use, it is not even an invalid tactic. It can be a moral one: for it is better to scare the enemy into capitulating, than to kill him, when possible. And when not possible, at least scare him into fighting less effectively, so that he kills fewer of our guys. “The war against those who use terror intentionally against defenceless civilians” is perhaps what the Bush administration was getting at -- the awkwardness of the phrase suggesting the awkwardness of the idea. I think I said it was lame, already. Nearly four years later, the administration is finally retooling this catchphrase. The defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, and others have replaced “war on terror" with the “global struggle against violent extremism". Three words with five, and four syllables with at least twelve. Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the joint chiefs, said Monday the reason was to direct the focus away from purely military activities -- “because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.” Fair enough; for the public still seems little to grasp that it has a role. But the word “struggle” depreciates a fight which is, truly, civilizational. And while it sometimes translates the Arabic word, and English can be a forceful language, the English “struggle” is no match for “jihad”. I don’t know how many focus groups reviewed the new phrase; I hope it was zero. It is technically an improvement, for it abandons the absurd idea that "terror" has a brain. But it gets us no closer to looking the enemy in the eye. The English word for that enemy is “Islamism”. Not the people, Muslims, nor the religion, Islam, though if you think Islamism is entirely unrelated to Islam, you will die of political correctness. Rather, a particular ideology within Islam, intensely cultivated by particular men, who command the loyalties of countless others. “Nazi” and “German” were also related. But our “struggle” was not against the Germans, since any Germans who hated the Nazis were, ipso facto, on our side. Ditto, any Muslims who hate the Islamists -- welcome aboard. I have the word personally from the lips of Muhammad al-Tantawi, the Grand Mufti of Cairo, and sheikh of Al-Azhar. He insisted on the distinction between “Islam” and “Islamism” in an interview with me, eight years ago. He himself said he loved the former, which is a religion, hated the latter, which is “a cynical reduction of Islam to political power”. So to coin a phrase: we are fighting a “War on Islamism.” David Warren
© Ottawa Citizen
|
Top