I MADE A MISTAKE:
THIS WAS AN "A" BUT IT IS FROM GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS>>>MY
FLOPPY FOR THE OTHER DIED!!! SORRY
by
Kevin Steiner
Truth Uncloaked
Do you think we had all the information that
was at the President's disposal when he made the decision to deploy our troops
in the Gulf? Do you think having that information might have
made you feel more comfortable about our involvement? Should our government
decide what we get to know and what we
don't? By in large, we hear exactly what our government wants us to hear.
Knowing this, at no other time paralleled in history, we want the truth; we
thirst for it like those traveling through the desert without water and we are tired of being manipulated and
deceived by those we elect to serve our interests. However, more often than not, we settle for
what is given to us. Our truth is
wrapped by the media and promoted as gospel without hesitation or moral
reservation. Our acceptance of and reliance upon the media for sensitive,
truthful, information brings a sense of security and knowledge of world affairs
that satisfies our internal push for social involvement (even if it is at the
point of acknowledgment only). We are
happy with the knowledge because there is no discernible contradictions and
seldom question its relevancy, focus or content. Then later, a contradictory report erupts in
the media and we begin to question even what we see. The short footage shown by the media concerning
the beating of Rodney King was out of context.
Who is responsible for the disparity?
The media. They decide what we
hear and see. They manipulate to
dramatize for the dollar. Gossip,
murder, rape, political espionage, treason, drug deals, incest, wife battering,
muggings, immoral behavior of all sizes shapes and volumes seem to appeal to
human interest and the Networks use it to build their ratings while claiming
they proclaim truth for all (double effect).
These people and their focus gave us the Gulf War everyday, around the clock. Would it be surprising to know that the
media not only reports the news they help facilitate public approval that could
justify a war through the use of metaphors alone? The use of metaphors in war
and everyday life is common and an important method employed to eventually
arrive at a position of approval for military action. Before the use of metaphors is discussed it
is necessary to understand specific conditions in which any war is justified.
Conditions Necessary to Justify a War
Two specific conditions are necessary to
justify war. First, direct aggression
against the United States, our allies, or those who are unable to protect
themselves against direct aggression.
Second, indirect aggression against the U.S.. During both conditions the moral correctness,
realistic threat and potential harm would be assessed to determine an
appropriate response. After a decision
has been made from those premises, war could morally be justified and action
should be taken. However, indirect aggression is the most difficult
premise to evaluate. Its relevancy to
our nation and allies is difficult to determine succinctly. In order to understand how we would deal with
such a condition to engage in a war built on this premise one must understand
U.S. ideology.
Current U. S. ideology insists that direct
aggression be met with self defense.
Under this condition, the main concerns are the safety of its citizens,
the freedom to exercise their rights and proportional intervention against the
aggressor to ensure such safety and freedom.
An example of U. S. policy for this situation occurred on December 7,
1941. The United States declared war on
Japan in self defense. U.S. response was
considered necessary and imminent. Indirect aggression on the other hand, it is
not so easy to establish a just war.
Every war fought after W.W. II rested on the
U.S. response to indirect aggression.
Capitalism and democracy is directly opposed to dictatorship and
communism. The fear of such tyrannical
rule made most Americans shudder. Any
possibility of communistic rule or influence was perceived as a direct threat
and destroyed, if by no other reason, by fear..
The thought established in the
1950' sheds a great amount of light on U.S. policy as it relates to
communism. The cold war was a
reality. Commercials were made over the
radio about the need for bomb shelters and the possible attack that would be
launched from Russia. People fear
anything that is unfamiliar. Communism
was heralded as a terrible disease that would spread like the plague and American
policy was a direct reflection of that fear.
Any opportunity to defeat communism or to prevent it's capture of other
nations was considered a just venture that would elevate a potential threat to
our nation. The Vietnam war was fought against communism and so was the Korean
conflict.
New Policy-World
Responsibility and the Protection of Human Rights
The Wall fell in the late 80's and the cold
war disappeared. American policy had to
make several adjustments to the new world order and our responsibility to
it. Another concept was developed in
addition to a just war fought on indirect and direct aggression against us: The
protection of others who could not protect themselves (not an ally) against an
unjust enemy.
The U S could not make a connection of
indirect aggression against us but it had another card to play. A poll was released by several news papers
and magazines asking Americans what reasons did they think we could use to
justify coming to the aid of Kuwait. The
results: They would not support our
involvement based upon indirect aggression.
However, they would support the other position offered by the Bush
administration in support of human rights.
Political and economic considerations are
always woven into every military action and considered in-depth relating to the
cost of war in both areas of concern.
The Public was not politically or economically sagacious in the terms of
justifying action. No one questioned the
use of two scenarios. Why did the
government give us two options? Was our
involvement so questionable or were there more reasons? Studying the reasons for the use of metaphors
might help and knowing how the President approached the situation.
Old Policy-Create
Empathy to Gain Approval for Justifying a War
How did the President justify a war? It's simple--gain public support. If the public believes going to war is
morally correct (even if they do not know all the facts) the war is universally
justified and the President can wash his hands at the expense of public
interest. The public makes its
determination several ways. In reference
to the Gulf crisis, the involvement of the state initiates involvement of the
media and the media passes on information to the public and the public makes
the decision that justifies of condemns military action. Since the President had already deployed the
military he counted on the media to educate the people on the injustice Kuwait
had suffered and support his decision to deploy and possibly go to war if need
be. Eventually, public thought would be
reflected by congressional vote.
Strategy of the
State and the Role of the Media
Since information from the media is the
central player in this decision it should be examined closely. There are three specific functions of the
media during a war. "Delivering the
facts" concept of the media serves three larger purposes for the
state. First, the media will be giving
information to the people and the people are needed to gain a firm vote in
congress. This is not as simple as it
appears you must put yourself in the shoes of the President. He has put his political career in jeopardy
if he does not gain support (it is election year). If he is forced to withdraw military support
after he has deployed US looks like a red-headed step-child in the face of
world opinion. So it would follow that
large amount of information and many meetings would be conducted before he
would take such action based upon information that the public is not privileged
to see. The three things he needs from
the public in order to gain full support for his actions are: Capture the interest of the voters; promote
empathy for Kuwait; and make the public feel that US involvement is necessary
to the point of answering polls ect....
The media would ensure that American's got everything that the White
House had to offer including passing on every intercepted electronic impulse
that passed from the scene of the potential conflict. Almost every briefing and commentary had at
least one thing in common-metaphors.
The Use of
Metaphors
The use of metaphors by the state was
launched again and again throughout history.
It is nothing new
and it serves its purpose well. First,
metaphors are a very powerful tool capable of the worst acts imaginable.
"Metaphors can kill. The discourse over whether to go to war in
the gulf was a pana-
rama of metaphor. Secretary of State Baker saw Saddam Hussein
as 'sitting on our
economic lifeline.' President Bush portrayed him as having a
'stranglehold' on our
economy. General Schwartzkopf characterized the
occupation of Kuwait as a 'rape'
that was ongoing." (Lakoff,
1991)
The Legalists
Paradigm-The Bridge to Empathy
It is obvious to see the "legalistic
paradigm" that Walzer discusses in his theory at work here (Walzer,
1977). The idea of course it to gain support of the
public and maybe even convince themselves what they are doing is right. Public support is gained by getting them to
empathize. Empathy is always bridged by
what we hold as common between parties.
So the use of metaphors is the bridge that we use to establish that
common ground. Metaphors provide us with
a view that is not foreign to our understanding and way of life. They assign meaning to our everyday lifestyle
by forming together clustered amounts of information and their systems into a
short title. For example: when the word
rape is mentioned many things come to mind and an emotional response probably
accompanies it. When speaking about a
war, metaphors are often hurled around like popcorn at a movie theater
bulging with teenagers. Metaphors like
rape and the like, which threaten by their very nature, cause us to rally and
promote action. Metaphors are
extremely powerful when used to explain events, especially if reciprocation is
in question. According to Lakoff,
"The most natural way to justify a war on moral grounds is to [use a
metaphor] (Lakoff, 1991). Many of our
current uses of metaphors are a direct result of Carl von Clausewitz view on
war.
U.S. Ideology and
Foreign Policy
According to, a Prussian General, when the
costs of war exceeds the political gains, the war should cease or never be
entered. Another one of his points is if
at anytime a war would prove beneficial for the state it should be
pursued. His "views on war became
dominant in American foreign policy circles during the Vietnam War"
(Lakoff, 1991). He has continued to
influence us even recently:
"The New York Times, on November
12, 1990, ran a front-page story
announcing that 'a national debate
ha[d] begun as to whether the United
States should go to war in the
Persian Gulf. The Times described the
debate
as defined by Clausewitz's metaphor
on a literal level of understanding and
then the poised the questions: 'What then in the nation's political
objective
in the gulf and what level of
sacrifice is it worth?'"
The emphasis wasn't directed
at the metaphors but at the costs. The
influence of metaphors should not be understated. They are an intrinsic element within any
strategist's mind and often follow in close relation to one's personal rights.
The-State-as-Person
System Metaphor
The first metaphor under consideration is
"The State-as-Person System," more commonly referred to as the
legalist paradigm which is built upon the domestic analogy (Walzer, 1977). The state is the person who is living a
normal life in society. The area in which
he lives is considered his home (Country).
Of course he lives with his friends and family and scattered around are
enemies he may have to face. His enemies
represent the aggressive state(s) that attempt to ruin, change or destroy those
whom he cares for, has respect for, or destroy his possessions or seek his
destruction. In other words disrupt his
manner of life.
The Fairy Tale
Metaphor
The next metaphor under consideration is the
"Fairy Tale of the Just War."
"The scenario: A crime is committed by the villain against
an innocent victim
(typically an assault, theft, or
kidnapping). The offense occurs due to
an imbalance
of power and creates a moral
imbalance. The hero makes scarifies; he
undergoes
difficulties, typically making an
arduous journey...The villain is inherently evil...
and thus reasoning with him is out of
the question. The hero is left with no
choice
but to engage in battle. The hero defeats the villain and rescues the
victim. The
moral balance is restored. The enemy-as-[a]-demon metaphor arises as a
consequence of the fact that we
understand what a just war is in terms of a fairy tale"
(Lakoff, 1991).
From our youth stories like this have
brought about the intense feeling of justice- good always wins. These stories capture the imagination and
paint a picture of those who employ it as the heroes no doubt. This was one of the analogies used by the
Bush administration in a poll that gained the largest public backing
(Metaphorical Definition p. 2).
The Violent Crime
Metaphor
The last Metaphor under consideration is
"War as Violent Crime." This
metaphor is dualistic in its approach.
War is, in reality, violence and incorporates "murder, assault,
kidnapping, arson... and theft" (Lakoff, 1991), and at the same time could
be viewed from the point of peace and a terrible domestic crime. Iraq represents the evil criminal and the
coalition represents the hero who will triumph and stop the criminal from
committing unlawful acts. All the while
the coalition is doing the same under the cloak of justice. It boils down to who did it first. Reaction is in the same manner could be
justified in the name of a rescue and self-defense.
These are only some of the main analogies
used during the Gulf War to gain political support for an approval of U. S.
commitment.
Conclusion
No, we don't know all the facts and that is
a certainty we must realize even when witnessed by a camera. We have a new role that has yet to be fully
understood and planned for so it would not be considered wild for us to be
involved in just about anything until we make our position clear. It remain certain however when the use of
metaphors crop up in the media and at press conferences the aim is for your
empathy and support without knowing the whole story. There would be no need for the use of metaphors when talking about war
if there was nothing to hide.
The metaphorical
options used by the government assured voter confidence and a
"no-lose" situation for the President's decision about the Gulf War.
New York
Times. November 12, 1990.
Walzer,
Michael Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Information.
Basic Books: HarperCollins, USA, 1977.
Lakoff,
George. Metaphor and War: The Metaphor
System Used to Justify War in the Gulf.
November, 1991; UC Berkeley CA.
Metaphors
that
Justify
a
War
Kevin T. Steiner
GVMT
403
Dr. T.
Gerald
Term II, 1996
No comments:
Post a Comment