War on this, battle against that . . .

Sorry, I'm a US citizen, but I think I have an idea why this language is used...

When you speak of war and battle you imply certain things. An important impression is that important men lead wars and battles. And since war and battle are active pursuits, this implies their leaders are actively conducting a stratagem. It is perhaps this last impression that politicians enjoy most.

 

I'd like to put my 2 cents in too -- but from a global, non-nationalistic viewpoint.

I think people may use the vernacular "war" and "battle" because it may signify a fight to attain an objective that will be hard won....that it will be a difficult thing to accomplish -- and that also, we need to gear up and "man the turrets" for the long haul.

 

Yep. "Battle against corruption", "war on poverty", "battle against hooliganism" etc. Simplistic political rhetoric and the result is almost always the same, total failure.

 

The only "war" I remember in New Zealand, was the "War Against the Painted Apple Moth". This foreign moth somehow arrived in the country and we had to eradicate it before it settled in because it would have had disastrous impacts on our agriculture. Every morning, these low flying planes would spray anti-moth dust over the districts where the moth had been sighted.

 

Well, here in Manitoba (Canada), we have an on-going battle against mosquitoes; occasionally it flares up into an all-out war, but that usually only happens in the summer.

But watch out for them winter-type 'skeeters - their bite is viscious! Or maybe that's wolves - I can never tell them apart.

What was the question again? -- Oh yeah...what Spelly said.

 

Keeps us interested, keeps us scared.

 

I think politicos like to use the terms 'war' because it sounds as if leaders take action.

A 'war on drugs', a 'war on terror' just feels better than 'rigorous law enforcement and procecution'. It certainly has a vanity aspect, as it elevates politicos to generals and leaders. It feels strong.

And it sounds stong and reassuring to an audience, while preparing it for a 'long hard slog' - another major point, as Spelly hinted on. When people point out failure, a politico can say: 'Wars consist of many fights, we lost this one but there's light at the end of the tunnel! Look at our stats: 500 enemies killed, 10 top leaders caught, 750 tons of drugs confiscated ...'

'War' allows you to deflect critcism easier ... 'We won't be unpatriotic now, won't we? *You* want *them* to win?'

 

I think that the right question is if a war against whatever is actually taking place. Will those, who are already corrupted and depended on various economic interests, fight the corruption? Will those, who take advantage of every terrorist attack in order to limit civil rights, fight terror? All these wars are just empty meaningless words and nothing more.

 

"Thumb-wrestle against terrorism" just doesn't stir me up that much.

"Glaring at drugs" sounds pretty inept.

"Harsh language against AIDS" fails to create a hopeful image.

Same reason why military and conquest terms are used in sports...you can't allow yourself to accept anything less than vanquishing the foe.

Some wars are being won, dmc. Look at Lance Armstrong...Magic Johnson...all the people who are alive because we waged a "war against <insert>".

 

First of all, in Germany politicians would rather die than use 'war on something' in politics. That has also historical reasons. They would rather refer to it as the 'fight against, say, powerty, unemployment, terrorism' - which is a disctinct difference.

And then I don't think that 'wars on something' have been particularly successful. It's generally about escalation. Harsher repercussions are an instinctive conservative response on a problematic situation, not only in the U.S.

Like in their 'war on drugs' the US used more coast guard, more police, then introduced tougher legislation, and eventually the mobilised the military for domestic purposes.

Either way, I feel that the use of 'war on something' is in the West pretty much special to the U.S. (I don't know about communist regimes).

 

I think that depends on our metrics, i.e., the victory conditions to put a military spin on it. For example, are the metrics for the war on AIDS a reduction in the spread of AIDS, or complete eradication of the disease? If the former, then in can possibly be won, if the latter, then sadly, it probably cannot be. Even though there are more AIDS cases now than there were 5 years ago in the U.S., the rate at which AIDS is spreading is down from what it was five years ago. I can only assume that education and medical advances (people stay HIV positive for much longer now without developing AIDS) was a major factor in this reduction, so in theory the same could apply to Africa, but it will be a monumental effort.

The same goes for the war on drugs. If the metrics are the complete elimination of drugs in the U.S., then no, that war can never be won. If the metrics are to reduce the amount of drugs coming into the country from abroad, then you can gain success. (There's really nothing you can do about locally grown/produced drugs. You can't go to every home in the U.S. and see if someone is growing marijuana plants with a sun lamp in their basement, or if they have a meth lab set up in their garage.)

That having been said, I agree with dmc that the war on terror cannot ever be won, at least not with the current victory conditions - i.e., the elimination of terror worldwide. Can terror be reduced? Most certainly. However, unless we are really going to give up a lot of our freedom, there's really nothing we can do about someone who straps explosives to himself and then gets on a bus...

 

This phrasing didn't start with politics -- it started with advertising. There has been a 'war on germs' for far longer than a war on drugs. We have:

war on pests
battle on scum
war on fat
battle for clean laundry
battle for clean teeth
fast food war
battle of the network stars
battle of the sexes

the list goes on and on....

 

Maybe it has to do with classic works like "The Art of War" or "The Prince". IIRC, Sun Tzu actually considered armed conflict the last resort in any dispute. That and some of the reasons stated earlier (like it's easier for the media)...

Does it work? It communicates to the masses that something is bad (at least it gets them to sing along with the politicians). Whether they believe it or not is left to debate. I knew someone once that used a "Just Say No to Drugs" pen as drug paraphenalia...

 

I thought it was Clausewitz who coined the expression of: "War as an extension of other means" or something of the kind.

In addition to what others have said in this thread I think there is a linguistic angle on this too. There seems to be a general "inflation" of the "superlatives" in todays society. Nothing is just big but it is biggest. Everything is described in the strongest possible terms always. Thus you have to use words like war and battle to get any reaction at all.

 

I think I read something a while ago about Hamid Karzai declaring a "jihad on poppies"...

 

@ Gnarf: indeed - the central theme of Sun Tzu is "Victory over War":

Taking a nation whole is superior
Destroying it is inferior to this
...
One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful
Victory without battle is the most skillful

But I'm not so sure Macchiavelli was as benevolent as this! He always counseled upon il principe always being ready for conflict, and using it as means to an end.

Ok, back on topic: yes, in the UK too we get the "war on <insert social problem here>" declarations, but they seem to be fewer, going on what people from the US are saying. Poverty (g8), terror and drugs are the only ones that spring to mind, and those phrases are as likely to have been coined by the media as politicians. It's not uncommon for hacks to try to liven up an otherwise slow news day.

 

Joa,
good one. Linguistically and logically, when war is the continuation of politics with other, that is military, means - a war on something can only mean escalation, the inclusion of these 'other means'.