DECONSTRUCTING “WAR”

Linda Markowitz

Many of you have already had the opportunity to hear persuasive arguments for and against attacking Iraq. This paper furthers the arguments made against attacking Iraq by deconstructing the rhetoric of “war.” Deconstruction, a post-structuralist term, is the process by which the various meanings of a dialogue are broken down and analyzed.

Let me start by first deconstructing the word, “war.” Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, the United States government has been very careful to call any actions it takes against others as a “war against terrorism.” Thus, the invasion of Afghanistan was referred to as a “war against terrorism.” So, too, is the recent appeal to attack Iraq. Since its inception, I have found the term, “war against terrorism,” perplexing. This term attempts to justify any killing done by the United States while de-legitimating any actions taken by those the U.S. deems enemies. The term “war” connotes a sense of duty, of necessity, of righteousness – not to mention of masculinity. War is the place where brave men go to defend their country. Terrorism, on the other hand, invokes a sense of venality and cowardliness. The image is often of a deranged man out to kill innocents. I find it extremely problematic (although convenient) that the United States government claims to know the difference between killing that is done by brave men to protect the populace and killing that is done by cowardly men to generate fear. Were the actions against Jews, gays/lesbians, gypsies, etc., by Germany acts of war? Was the aid provided by the United States in overthrowing the democratically elected Chilean president, Salvador Allende or the Nicaraguan president, Daniel Ortega an act of terrorism? The difference between terrorism and war is not an objective one. Rather the difference comes from the socio-cultural perspective of those seeking to legitimate their actions. Thus, it is war when the U.S. kills citizens; it is terrorism when “they” do it.

U.S. citizens, and the world, have been urged to see Hussein as a deranged man set out to obtain weapons of mass destruction (not to say he isn’t ruthless, but so was Pinochet). In other words, we are urged to view Hussein as a terrorist rather than a typical geo-political leader who stockpiles arms. The logic being used by the government is as follows: If Hussein is a “maniacal” terrorist, then shouldn’t the U.S. attempt to stop him just as a police officer might stop a drive-by sniper? Let me deconstruct this ethnocentric image in three ways.

First, underlying the potential Iraqi threat is the assumption that Hussein is a leader who lacks the ability to reason. He is a man who, much like Mo-Jo Jo-Jo from the Powerpuff girls, is constantly looking for ways to destroy the world! If Hussein ever used weapons of mass destruction then that is what would surely happen. The United States would be free to propel every weapon in its arsenal to destroy the entire country of Iraq. But our insane (hence, irrational) and deranged cartoon character (Hussein) apparently cannot understand that using weapons of mass destruction would cause his demise. Indeed, he is portrayed as even more crazy than Hitler because at least Hitler killed himself when he was losing the war. Hussein is so crazy, so deranged, so unbelievably bad that he is unable to grasp the reality that he would lose a war with a country that has enough weapons to destroy the Middle East in an afternoon.

Second, let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Hussein really is “that” deranged –that he has the “potential” to use weapons of mass destruction. As Bush said in his national address, Hussein “may” try to hurt U.S. citizens. For me, the operative word is “may.” We are supposed to be persuaded by the word “may.” When we deconstruct this term, we find, then, that the U.S. believes that the potential deaths of U.S. citizens is more important than the very real deaths of Iraqi citizens that will transpire with U.S. attacks. In a cost/benefit analysis, then, the potential loss of U.S. lives outweighs the real deaths of Iraqis and serves as justification for the attacks.

I must admit I love living. I love my style of living. And I love my children with a fierceness that overwhelms me. However, I also believe that the Iraqi citizens who will be killed in U.S. attacks feel exactly the same way. Yes, their style of living is different. They teach their children different things, but they love in the same way. They have the same urges to protect their children. Whenever I imagine an Iraqi family being forced from its home to avoid U.S. bombs or a mother/father watching their child (whom they adore as much as I adore my children) die, I become weak with grief. Their child has died so that mine may not experience the “potential threat” of dying. And while I’m not moved emotionally by the language the U.S. government uses to paint Hussein as a maniac, I’m deeply moved by the image of real parents unable to save the lives of their children.

Third, the U.S. government has not only condemned the potential access Hussein has to weapons of mass destruction, but it has also deemed this potential as reason enough to attack Iraq. Deconstructing this message, it becomes clear that the U.S. government assumes that weapons of mass destruction are dangerous in the hands of powerless countries, but these same weapons are safe in the hands of the more powerful ones. There are obvious ethnocentric implications in this assertion – namely that killing, stealing or the harming of others by the powerful is necessary and good while the same actions by the powerless is horribly wrong. This belief is not a new one. We need only look back at Native-American and slave history to see how the powerful used “manifest destiny” to kill, steal and harm.

Again, language is very important. We now look at U.S. expansionist history and feel ashamed at the government’s inhumanity. How could the U.S. have knowingly and violently removed Native Americans from their land or enslaved others for its own benefit? Indeed, we often think of the present United States government as much more morally evolved: the current governments would never replicate such acts of hatred and ethnocentrism. Yet, it is crucial to remember that at the time of U.S. expansionism, the government did not perceive itself as an evil wrong doer out to harm innocents. Quite the contrary, the language of “war” that was used then to remove the Native Americans and to enslave others is the exact language that is being used now: U.S. citizens are morally superior; they know when to use violence; they know who are the deranged and who are the sane. The geo-political terrain may have changed, but U.S. rhetoric and actions are very similar.

Another point I wish to make concerns U.S. oil interests. Many have argued that the largest impetus to attack Iraq is related to oil. It is no surprise that of the three in the “axis of evil,” Iraq has captured U.S. attention first. Of course, I do not want to downplay the real threat to the economy that Iraq could inflict by forever denying the U.S. its access to oil. The U.S. sorely depends on oil, our economy would presently falter without it. And not only because big business would be hurt. The average citizen also painfully depends on oil. How would we commute from our homes in the suburb to our work in the city without oil? How would we persevere through the relentless winters/summers without oil? The entire infrastructure presently in the U.S. requires oil for its maintenance. Yet, I am very suspicious of this necessity.

It seems counter-intuitive to spend billions of dollar attacking a country so that we can foster our dependence on oil – a limited substance that when refined and used pollutes and destroys the earth. It makes more sense that the U.S. spend those billions of dollars on researching methods that would allow it to find alternative and renewable sources of energy. What I find confusing is that the government clearly sees oil as our present and future energy source. To deconstruct this continued dependency, we must ask why. Who benefits from it?

A final note on deconstructing the “rhetoric of war” involves the U.S. government’s request for silence. U.S. citizens, government officials, intelligence gatherers, world leaders, citizens from other countries — we have all been asked to remain silent about opposition to U.S. attacks. We are supposed to trust that the U.S. government knows what is best. We are supposed to believe that “he” (who has begun the violence?) will know how to end the violence. A wise poet, friend of mine, Ruth Ellen Kocher, once said, “I’m suspicious of anybody who offers to protect me in my silence.” I, too, am suspicious of anyone who demands my silence in exchange for “doing what is best” for me, my country, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, the Philippines, Panama, Grenada, Russia, the Republic of Congo, Angola, Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq, etc.

Linda Markowitz is associate professor of Sociology at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville. Her email address is lmarkow@siue.edu