5 Responses for "Language and War"

1. Brad January 11th, 2008 at 1:51 pm 1

   The headline was not characterizing “these particular Sunnis as militants,” but rather these particular militants as Sunnis. There is a big difference there. As you know there are a number of different militant factions in Iraq, with different ideologies, tactics, and geographical areas of influence, so this information is pretty valuable to someone who is concerned with digesting accurate information regarding the state of affairs in Iraq.

   As for propaganda, I am skeptical that the presence of a single word in a headline immediately makes something so (in this case, the word “Sunni”). What about the actual story? I’m assuming you read it even though you didn’t explicitly state so. Was it trying to indoctrinate Americans against Sunnis, or was it simply trying to clearly identify the target and reasons behind the airstrike? Once again, I am concerned at your hastiness in jumping to such harsh conclusions without looking at the bigger picture.

2. resistance 2 | News trend site January 11th, 2008 at 2:33 pm 2

   [...] Language and War [...]

3. Duane Johnson January 11th, 2008 at 3:05 pm 3

   Hi Brad,

   Thanks for the reply. I was only reading headlines as I passed the newspaper stand, so I didn’t get a full read of the article.

   With regard to this discussion, we should allow that almost all headlines are intentional and not accidental. As such, it seems valuable to analyze my own reaction to a headline since: (a) headlines reach a wider audience than the articles they represent, and (b) propaganda is about evoking feelings in a subject before the subject has time for a reasoned response.

   The “bigger picture” that I’m striking at here is that we are over there, they are not over here—we are the aggressors, they are the defenders. My “hastiness”, as you put it, is part of a deep and anguished frustration at being on one hand a lover of this country and its founding ideals, but on the other a taxpayer who is funding a war of aggression with which I disagree.

   I object to the characterization of people who are defending their own land as “militants”. We would never use the same language about our people if someone were attacking us. As such, it seems an application of propaganda, helping us to soothe the conscience—after all, “militants” seem more worthy of death than, say, “freedom fighters”, or “Sunni patriots”.

   We should bring the troops home, and revamp the Department of Pre-emptive War back to its morally justifiable role as the Department of Defense.

4. Brad January 11th, 2008 at 10:06 pm 4

   *Sigh*. I’m still concerned with your hasty conclusions, as your last comment contains plenty of them. Your sweeping generalization and characterization of certain groups continues to astound. Some pieces of information you left out of your “big picture”, which painted Sunni “militants” as “freedom fighters” and “patriots”, are as follows:

   * The civil war between Sunnis and Shias which is being perpetuated by both sides, including Sunnis (which I only emphasize since Sunnis specifically have been the focus of the conversation so far)
   * The anger that certain of the Sunni minority feels at having lost the power it formerly held under Sadam’s regime to the Shia majority in the new Iraqi government
   * The Sunni targeting of new Iraqi government military and police forces for violent acts
   * The Sunni targeting of non-military/civilian targets via suicide bombings

   Please explain to me how all of these things are the acts of “freedom fighters” and “patriots.” I suspect you would have a much harder time using these labels when consider either Sunni or Shia militants with respect to one another or the new Iraqi government.

   I object to the characterization of people who participate in sectarian violence against their own people of differing sects and who spread violence, discord, and strife among fellow members of their own nation as “freedom fighters” or “patriots.” I believe the correct term for such is “militants.”

   I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, but you have a tendency toward extreme tunnel vision when you write about these topics. I repeat as I have said before: I am not saying America is without blame in the situation. I wish our troops could come home right now. However I am compelled to point out that you are not considering the complete situation and you are far too eager to paint certain people/groups as saints and use America as a scapegoat for their own atrocious actions.

5. Duane Johnson January 16th, 2008 at 10:06 pm 5

   I understand your perspective, Brad. I don’t see the whole picture, and I’m sure that frustrates you. It would frustrate me too

   It’s difficult to understand what would drive people to the extreme acts you mention—they seem militant, senseless, even barbaric. However, we see them that way in part because we must justify ourselves with soothing language, which is my point. We need to justify ourselves now that we’ve made a fatal, awful mistake that has damaged our identity as a nation.

   Have you ever read the book, “Leadership and Self Deception”? There is a story in there as an example of what the author calls “self-betrayal”. The story goes something like this:

   A husband and wife are in bed one night, just nodding off. All of a sudden, their baby starts to cry. The husband thinks to himself, briefly, “I should go tend to him,” but instead, lazily stays in bed. In order to justify his act to himself, he suddenly has the thought, “I have work tomorrow, she should tend to our son.” While the baby continues its cries for attention, the husband buries himself deeper in frustration, “Why doesn’t she get up? Goodness, she’s being so lazy.” And so on. The point, of course, is that after denying the initial “true” thought—that he should tend to the baby—self-betrayal set in, and various excuses and blaming took place to justify himself. This is also known as cognitive dissonance.

   In America today, we betrayed ourselves. We thought we were a good-guy nation, but when we occupied Iraq and set it on a course of civil war and endless, terrible death, we had to justify ourselves. Try to find one article that explains the war from Iraqi eyes—from those who fight on the other side. Rarely, if ever, can we do it. Why would we? Doing so is to risk seeing ourselves as occupiers, thieves and instigators of death.

   You said, “I object to the characterization of people who participate in sectarian violence against their own people of differing sects and who spread violence, discord, and strife among fellow members of their own nation as ‘freedom fighters’ or ‘patriots.’ I believe the correct term for such is ‘militants.’”

   Aren’t we spreading violence, discord and strife? Is our violence against the Iraqi people somehow justified because we are not like them? (I don’t understand your logic here). Is it because our American violence is justified that we do not describe it as “militant” behavior? You seem to say that you understand these “militants” intentions and condemn them for not wanting to unify the country as it once was unified under Saddam Hussein. In other words, they have a vision of their country that is different from your vision of their country, and therefore there means to that end is unjustified. But what is our “end” for Iraq? And if we have no clear vision of it, how can our means justify it, assuming you accept the premise that ends sometimes justify the means?

   You said that I am scapegoating America. I’d like to address that. I am aware of a recent court ruling here in the USA where a young man lent his truck to an acquaintance. The acquaintance then went on to murder someone. What is interesting in this case, is that according to the law of our land, the young man who lent the truck was guilty of murder because he enabled the crime. Without the truck, there would have been no murder. That was enough to convict him.

   Likewise, we as a nation are the enablers of the crimes you describe. Without our meddling and occupation, there would be no divided country to fight in. We are accessories to every crime that goes on there.

   I don’t want to pretend the Iraqis are innocent and wonderful in everything they do. You seem to have taken my meaning the wrong way—nowhere have I said that their choices should have no consequences, or that justice should not be served. But I do object to a one-sided justice in which our violent acts are excusable (and labeled as such) while others’ violent acts in this war are inexcusable (and labeled as “militant” for example).