DownloadSept. 1, 2008 issue
Questioning war’s mythology
Page:
- 1
- 2
A myth is often thought of as a false belief, but it can also refer to a narrative people use to make sense of the world. Such a myth may or may not be true, and the conclusions drawn from it may or not not be helpful.
By that definition, the U.S. “war on terror” was recently declared a dangerous myth.
This assessment came from the RAND Corporation, a non-profit research center that provides data and advice to the Department of Defense.
RAND released a study July 30 that critiqued the U.S. approach to fighting terrorism. The study took issue with the focus on military force and with the mythic title, “war on terror.”
In a summary of the findings, RAND stated: “Police and intelligence agencies, rather than the military, should be the tip of the spear against al-Qaida in most of the world, and the United States should abandon the use of the phrase ‘war on terrorism.’ ”
What difference would it make to say the United States is engaged in counterterrorism rather than a war?
“Terrorists should be perceived and described as criminals, not holy warriors,” said Seth Jones, the study’s lead author, in a news release. “Our analysis suggests that there is no battlefield solution to terrorism.”
Jones’ comment calls attention to the double-edged myth-making power of declaring war. It mobilizes support for a cause but also raises the status of the enemy.
One who provokes war with the world’s superpower gains mythic stature that a criminal pursued by law enforcement and intelligence networks could not achieve. To Islamist extremists who resent Western influence in the Arab world, Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida terrorists are holy warriors with global power partly because the United States gives them that identity.
Even as warrior mythology has raised the status of al-Qaida leaders, a wartime mindset in the United States has enabled abuses of power by government officials and made Americans willing to sacrifice freedoms in the name of national security. In a nation at war, officials have been able to claim that former constraints do not apply, opening the way for violations of human rights and lowering the nation’s moral standards.
Page:
- 1
- 2
Comments
-
Paul Shrag editorilizes "that War is an act of putting faith in one's self of playing God with human lives and moral law. It is an act of idolatry, and our most powerful and dangerous myth." Is not "playing God" part of the American myth of "rugged indivualism" and warfare is a smoke screen to hide the rebellion against God. The tragedy, is that we lost our sovereign rights at the garden, and these rights can only be restored at the Cross, a myth that I can embrace and rejoice eternally.
Comment on the article Questioning war’s mythology
The purpose of comments is to engage in dialogue. We expect commenters to treat authors and each other as each would want to be treated. Respectful criticism is welcomed; offensive comments or parts of comments will be removed by the site administrator. Name and comment will be posted; email address is for follow-up only and will not be made public.
