Defining the war on terrorism

Ever since the infamous events of 9/11, our government made significant efforts in creating a new buzz phrase, 'the war on terrorism'. Politicians repeated this buzz phrase so often, it quickly became a household phrase. It's well known that when a motto or phrase is repeated often enough, people will eventually accept and believe it. Such buzz phrases are not accidental, but intended to serve as a rallying point around which the public will stand.

Ask anyone you know, What is the war on terrorism? and the initial response might well be a look of incredulity. Why, it's the war in Iraq! (or Afghanistan or maybe Bin Laden) would be likely answers.

The use of these words, in context, is puzzling indeed. War is a state of terror if you're in the war zone. While war used to be conducted on a defined battlefield, this is no longer the case. If you're a civilian living in a country at war, it's as likely that you'll be maimed or killed as not. Being that civilian is to live in a state of constant terror.

So, after hearing this rallying cry for the thousandth time, I decided to consult my dictionary for the straight scoop. Here's what I found.

Terrorism is defined as the use of force or threats to intimidate etc., especially as a political policy. Well now, this would seem to apply to any nation at war. Nations that foment war always have a political purpose at the core. It may not be the one that's advertised to the public, but you can bet it's politically inspired.

What does the dictionary have to say about war? 1. open armed conflict, as between nations 2. any active hostility or struggle 3. military operations as a science.

So the war on terrorism is a war on war? Wow. That's a good one. What brainiac coined this phrase?

This warrants a further look at the concept. Our dictionary friend defines terror thusly. 1. intense fear 2. one that causes intense fear; the quality of intense fear. What about the word terrorize? 1. to terrify 2. to coerce, make submit etc. by filling with terror. Surely these words characterize the experience of war.

Now, what's a warmonger? Dictionary says one who advocates, or tries to cause war. You put it all together and the conclusions are obvious.

The phrase, 'war on terrorism' must be the product of someone with a quite poor command of the language. Why not, 'war on Bin Laden'? Perhaps 'the war on the warlord' (a local ruler or bandit leader) might be more accurate, but perhaps it just doesn't have the right cadence. Besides, how could the politicians then shift our focus to Iraq?

It's both ridiculous and tragic that the perpetrator has, to date, not been captured. A single individual. U.S. special forces are highly skilled groups. They can find and capture anyone, anywhere, no matter how well protected or important that individual might be. Find Bin Laden, and the world will cheer. His organization might survive, but his capture would surely give a new would-be leader pause.

Such a failure begs the question: is it a war on terrorism, as described? How do the military bases at key oil field locations fit in to this equation?

Perhaps we need to examine our dictionary definitions and take a closer look at this term the war on terrorism.