Lifting the Dark Threat: The Impact of Metaphor in the War Against Terror

Prevalent not only in political rhetoric, but also in foreign policy, metaphor has an impact on the way we define and carry out war. In my research I investigated the following themes: the purpose and meaning of metaphor in language; how metaphor shapes foreign policy; how metaphorical rhetoric was used by politicians from September 11, 2001 to President Bush’s State of the Union Address in January 2002; and the benefits and objections to metaphor use in theory and practice as it relates to the War Against Terror. In looking at the impact of metaphor as it is used both in shaping foreign policy and in application to the War Against Terror, this study encompasses an even broader range of disciplines – linguistics, anthropology, sociology, psychology, communication studies, and military science. INTRODUCTION Since September 11, political discourse about terrorism has largely been a pastiche of metaphor. President George W. Bush has described Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, as the “ultimate parasite” who is “wanted dead or alive”. Countries that support terrorism have been identified as the “axis of evil”. Secretary of State, Colin Powell, has described the two-staged war on terror as a “global assault on terrorism in general”. Arizona Senator, John McCain, R, spoke of the costs of war as a “sacrifice [of] American treasure”. Bush optimistically described the action of the US as one that will “lift this dark threat” of terrorism. What is the purpose of metaphor in foreign policy? Certainly metaphorical rhetoric captures headlines: CNN commentary on the attack has included such captions as “Taliban: U.S. ‘thirsty for bloodshed’” and “Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd: Noose is tightening around Taliban”; but metaphor also plays a significant role in shaping foreign policy. Metaphor serves as a useful tool in comprehending abstract or difficult concepts. Much of foreign policy pertaining to the war on terror is constructed of a system of metaphors. A widely accepted definition of war is a metaphor offered by Prussian general, Karl von Clausewitz: “war is politics pursued by other means”. In his article, “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf”, noted linguist, George Lakoff, has described this metaphor as having an implicit meaning: war is politics; politics is business. In this light, according to Lakoff, Clausewitz’s metaphor then becomes the foundation for the metaphorical system in foreign policy: a cost-benefit analysis “defining beneficial "objectives", tallying the "costs", and deciding whether achieving the objectives is "worth" the costs.” The frequency of metaphor use in politics leads to a variety of questions and potential problems to be examined. What is a metaphor and why use it? Defining metaphor is simple; it is an implicit description of one thing in terms of another. The meaning of metaphor, however, has often been the subject of philosophical debate. Philosophers 1 Presidential Address. 13 March 2002. 2 Speech to Congress. 20 Sept. 2001. 3 State of the Union Address. 29 Jan. 2002. 4 Ensor, David. “The Challenge to Crush bin Laden”. CNN. 9 Sept. 2001. 5 Ensor, David. “The Challenge to Crush bin Laden”. CNN. 9 Sept. 2001. 6 “A Nation Challenged; In President’s Words: ‘Lift This Dark Threat’”. The New York Times. Late Edition. 11/07/01 7 “Taliban: U.S. ‘thirsty for bloodshed’” CNN. 11 Oct. 2001. 8 “Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd: Noose is tightening around Taliban” CNN. 14 Oct. 2001.