What’s in a frame?

I’m starting to realise that when americans use the word ‘war’, it seems they mean something rather different from the rest of the English-speaking world.

Can anyone clarify what they mean by war that makes it wrong in this context? Is it really something as easy to parody as ‘two armies with muskets standing 200 feet apart’, updated for technology but not culture?

soru

Can anyone clarify what they mean by war that makes it wrong in this context?

The secret is to click on the links:

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had “objected to the use of the term ‘war on terrorism’ before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.” He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that “terror is the method they use.”

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require “all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities’ national power.” The solution is “more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military,” he concluded.

“all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities’ national power.” The solution is “more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military,” he concluded.

Sorry, that still makes no sense. He seems to be suggesting that miltary activity is something different from politics, which is kind of like saying lung activity is something different from breathing.

soru

Fair point, the metaphor breaks down, as you can’t breathe without using your lungs, but can do politics without using your military.

‘Mouth’ would work better, but I am not sure a point based on ‘oral activity’ would be taken entirely seriously.

soru

I think part of the problem here is that too many US policy makers forget that war is an extensnion of politics by other means: they focus too much on the military and not enough on the politcs. Look at how the US fought the war in Iraq: it seized on a tactical plan that emphasized speed, and traded space for time (e.g. bypassing Fallujah to hurry up and get to Baghdad). And this worked in a narrow military way (Saddam’s army fell) but turned out to be a disaster politically. Too much war talk undermined politics talk. This has had effects on the erstwhile “war” on terror – e.g. taking intelligence and special ops people out of Afghanistan/Pakistan and shipping them to Iraq to fight the war there. The emphasis on war may also have undermined multilateral intelligence and police work, though that needs to be examined more fully.

because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.

With all respect to Gen. Myers, my thinking is not so hidebound. Mere cries, in newspaper headlines or elsewhere, of “War!” don’t much affect my strategic thinking. Nor, it seems, do they affect his, nor y’alls, since you all seem able to apprehend that there are many non-uniformed-soldier elements to this thing.

I note with detached bemusement that this is a common element found in “framing” articles: the writer is always able to escape the same frame he claims is restraining the thought of everyone else.

(Is this a live preview!? That’s some sweet technology there! I’ll be stealing that, you can be sure.)

What I hear is that the new name is GSAVE (Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism), which, if you pronounce it out loud, is a bit more reassuring than its predecessor. “Gee, save!” is arguably preferable to “Gee, what?”, though perhaps less accurate.

However, since we’ve learned that “Jihad” is best translated as “struggle”, and that some spokesfolk for the other side also characterize their efforts as “Jihad”, should we worry that al-Jazeera will report this rebranding of US foreign policy as “Global Jihad against Jihad”?

Barry,

My impression is that Fallujah was anti-American from the very beginning of the occupation, as this link to a CNN story from May 1, 2003 (the day before Bush announced “Mission Accomplished”?) suggests:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/05/01/sprj.irq.fallujah/

If Republicans are good at framing things at home, they SU*K terribly at framing things for the foreigners.

They are farking unable to separate the issue of the bin Laden group and affiliates from the rest of the one billion Muslims.

Remember that in 2001 no other person than G.W.Bush said “this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.”

The problem is, that he didn’t want to wage a full scale religious crusade yet talked like so. If you declare Crusade, all the devout Muslims simply have an obligation to join the defensive jihad.

The meme ‘War on Terrorism’ is only slightly better then calling it a crusade. As of now all those Muslims think that when we say terrorism we mean Islam.

Especially saying that the ‘War in Iraq is part of the global War on Terror’ is totally bollocks. Let me translate that into binLadenish:

‘The invasion and occupation of Iraq is part of the Crusade’.

Bin Laden was already arguing in 1996 that the US wants to invade and fragmentize Iraq. If you’re a Muslim, who would you believe, US propaganda or your own lying eyes?

The name I would use?

‘The Hunt for Al-Qaeda’

applies selectively to a single group of indivduals, whoever joins it makes himself a target, can be understood by Muslim countries like any other domestic police action, etc.

And you can keep repeating that bin Laden is an outcast, leader of a sect, etc.