War against language

...Mr. Obama, the man who would reform health care, is also a war president, and one who has not yet proved to Americans that he can be a success at that.
--The Economist (Jan. 9-15, 2010)

Regardless of what Americans may believe about our president's ability to combat terrorism, Obama is not a "war president."

The United States is not, of course, in a formal state of war, but this is not decisive. Congress has not formally declared war since World War II, but no one would doubt that we were at war in Korea and that we were at war in Vietnam.

Our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is more questionable. With whom, exactly are we at war? It would be far more accurate to state that we have intervened in those two countries to maintain order, and/or to chase after a group blamed for 9-11 and/or to take sides in civil insurrections.

But the "war on terrorism" ("terrorism" itself being a loaded term, meaning whatever the politician using it wants it to mean) is no more a "war" in any meaningful sense than is the "war on drugs" or the "war on illiteracy" or the "war on littering." I don't mean to be flippant. Obviously the stakes are high and the risks are deadly. But war, as understood in American and international law, refers to a specific hostile relationship between two sovereign nations. The "war against terrorism," which is not even aimed at any specific geographical area, resembles more closely a form of criminal enforcement, such as the battle against the Mafia or against the drug syndicates.

The reason why the definition is critical, the reason why we can not permit such a "war" -- a use of force against individual persons and their conspiracies that resembles a war only metaphorically -- to be considered war in any legal or constitutional sense, is that sloppy definitions permit sloppy reasoning and sloppy justifications. The Bush regime was able to push through a large number of questionable statutes, regulations, and policies under the mantra "We're at war!" How often did we hear Cheney say, in so many words, "I don't think you understand, sir. This country's fighting a war!"

Since the Bush administration contended that the "war against terrorism" would last years, decades, perhaps forever, it became clear that supposedly temporary infringements on civil rights -- such as the so-called Patriot Act -- were intended to become permanent. (Fortunately, in a narrow 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court in 2008 rejected attempts by Congress and the administration to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to issue habeas corpus on behalf of terrorist suspects being held at Guantánamo.)

In his novel 1984, Orwell wrote of a despotism that controlled its citizens, in part, by eradicating from the English language all words that would enable them to even think in seditious terms. Language is important. Words are important. The correct use of words is important.

The Nazis, in a nice Orwellian touch, hung that famous sign over Auschwitz: "ARBEIT MACH FREI" -- Work makes you free. It didn't, at least in any way that the inmates might have hoped. We ourselves may be engaged in a critical struggle against terrorism. But we are not "at war" against persons and their organizations that commit so-called terrorist acts. And using the word "war" doesn't make it so.