Image: Vladimir Dmitriev/iStockPhoto
In Brief
- Since the attacks on September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has used a war metaphor to define counterterrorism strategy. Such a description may simplify a complex reality, making it more mentally manageable, but it may also oversimplify and distort reality.
- Metaphors can guide national decision making. The wars that began in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 clearly demonstrate that the concept of a war to combat a method of violence used by nonstate agents is more than rhetoric.
- Viewing counterterrorism through the lens of law enforcement may yield more tightly focused tactics that are less costly than war and less likely to provoke resentment and backlash.
- Relating counterterrorism to disease containment or prejudice reduction shifts the focus to the psychological underpinnings of terrorism and, in doing so, may suggest successful long-term strategies that chip away at the motivations of terrorists.
On the eve of our national election, we realize that one challenging issue facing the next president is how to address terrorism and the options for counterterrorism. As psychological research has made clear, what he and his administration say about these issues will influence how the public thinks about them—and will affect our national and international policy. [For more on the power of words, see “When Words Decide,” by Barry Schwartz; Scientific American Mind, August/September 2007.]
Since the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001, the Bush administration has used a battle metaphor: the “global war on terrorism” and the “war on terror.” Such descriptive terms simplify complex realities, making them more mentally manageable. But they do not adequately represent the complexities of the problem, resulting in selective perception of the facts, and they may reflect the views of only a few key policy makers. Nevertheless, they can guide national decision making. The wars that began in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003 clearly demonstrate that the concept of a war to combat a method of violence used by nonstate agents is more than rhetoric.
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentAn Interesting read. Though using slogans which simplify reality may have flaws, it is probably necessary for a political body to due so to be able to "sell" its dogma/proposition to a larger public that is most likely uninformed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving equal level status members of two groups working together towards a common goal may intuitively seem like it would foster goodwill in between the groups..but does reality conform to that assumption?
It would be interesting to see some data at the incidence rate of people becoming a "terrorist" towards country A while living in country B who were raised/educated in country A.
A very good article. It goes further than the "traditional" approach: "it's us or them". I find it disturbing that both candidates in this year's elections aren't very clear about the necessity of strictly conforming to the Geneva's convention and are more or less comfortable with the notion of "the war on terror". Remember, America can be great by its example, not by its weapons: the ideas are immortal, the empires aren't!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA very interesting article. It reminds me of a TED talk on memes given by Dan Dennett, http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGjEkp772s
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think this is a very intresting article. It is almost like the FDA giving us fancy terms for the chemicals they put in our food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne major problem with 'the war on terrorism' is that all sides think the other(s) are the terrorists. And in a way they are all right. The fundemental religious belief of the 'People of the Book' i.e. Jews, Christians and Muslims, is that we humans have fallen from a state of perfection to one of imperfection, and that fall was caused -waaaay back- by a devil...and anyone who is not on 'your' side, that is to say not working to get back to 'heaven' is ipso facto working for that devil, and therefore terror attacks are justifiable. Until this weird, primative religious belief is swept from human consciousness, the war will never end...util the end, just as many fundamentalists of all three competing religious groups believe. Muslims believe Christianity is on a crusade to crush their god's real people, the Muslims, and they, the Muslims, have a duty to stop the Christians. Unfortunately they are right in their 'paranoia': many Christians -including many in high political office and in top military posts- do believe they must convert the Muslims. ..so we can all go back to 'heaven'. And the Muslims know it! The Muslims in turn believe that if they do not convert -or destroy- non-Muslims, they wont get back to 'heaven', which in this case includes the legendary plethora of virgins...though why sex would be needed in an 'eternal life' is not explained. The maddening illogic of all these groups (including Jews) is the great problem. All the fine ideas in this article for the re-wording of the labels for this religious warfare -warfare based on ancient ideas (e.g. of a devil-created world) that by necessity were ignorant of the laws of physics- will be useless unless the three offending religious groups grow up to the modern world. But that probably won't happen for hundreds of years. In the meantime, let us just hope that some religious nut or country wont try to get us ALL back to 'heaven' by the injudicious use of world-destroying WMDs. Such an act would, unfortunately, be logical, given the original, above-mentioned primative belief system of the People of the Book.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill Knutsen
Denmark
While i agree with what you have to say, i think this article is more generalized towards all wars and future wars; citing specific examples from events that most everyone who would read this article are aware of. I am particularly interested in the fact that just by change the way something is named; the new name leads to different results due to a shift in the group's mentality. I'm curious to see whether or not this concept could be applied to smaller social affairs, such as interactions with friends or family.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSpeaking in war terms seems to be a very common metaphor in United States. Remember the 'war on cancer', or the 'war to germs' in the bathroom, and the wars among urban gangs. Terms like 'defeat', 'battle' or 'surrender', and many others used in sports and in every day language are military terms. I wonder wheter this is somethihg common in other countries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso tell me the terrorism is ours or others
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisi want to ask u for debate compitation that the war on terror is ours or others and i m favour of others and u;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisits wrong nd wat do think
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisya im
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverything in the article makes sense, except the point it tries to make. In fact, all the tactics that the article contrasts to war are familiar elements of warfare. War isn't just killing the enemy's soldiers, it's also determining what makes the enemy tick, attempting to befriend the enemy's population, and avoiding unnecessary battles.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNotwithstanding your fine analysis, the war on terrror was Bush's cowardly and nakedly political attempt to deflect criticism and accountability for allowing the events of 9/11 to occur. If Americans really gave any thought at all to the magnitude of negligence and resulting cnyical manipulation of the aftermath, no Republican would ever be elected president again.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe semantic construct of 'war on terror' is more important to the American/western ideology (meaning the continuation of mass consumption) and is more real. By this I mean of course religious terror is real, but its impact and magnitude is deliberately exaggerated. If you look at how Chomsky identified the hypocrisy and fallacy of the term 'clash of civilizations', the same is applicable here. The Powers conveniently ignore and often secretly fund terror when it's suits them. The most blatant example of is the U.S. support of the extremist Saudi regime (and of course its British creation).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe second guilty party is, of course, the media, for no other ideology than the same commercial pressure. We witness daily the deliberate disaggregation of extremist examples appear in the newsworld against the moderate examples.
For all this the proper cure is for the population to educate itself, and choose the information it receives with discernment. Look at what the average American spends on entertainment against education and you'll see what I mean.
best wishes
The Salvation Army was founded in Nottingham in the UK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this