 |
Waging Wars in Iraq: The Metaphoric Constitution of Wars and Enemies
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
11
What are we fighting for?
The final difference of some significance between the constitution of the war by Bush andBlair concerns the broader framework within which each situates the war. Metaphoricanalysis reveals the connections that are produced between the (unknown) object and thosethat are known. Both leaders attempt to make these connections to broader issues whoseimportance is already recognised. One such connection is that I have just discussed: to thewar on terror in general and al Qaeda in particular. These two are, by late 2002, wellestablished as threats to which a response, even a military response, can be required. Bymaking the connections outlined in the previous section, both Blair and Bush produce theWar in Iraq as an instance of the War on Terror; Hussein as a surrogate for bin Laden. ForBush this is sufficient. To sell this war in the UK, however, Blair needs more. It is not thatthe war on terror is not a sufficient motivator in the UK, although it may well not be, butrather, as I have shown, the connection for Blair is tenuous. Thus, he sets the war into othercontexts, making it not only an instance of the war on terror, but an instance of other issues aswell.
The first and most obvious of the contextual differences is the connection Blair drawsbetween the war in Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). In most of the speeches,and particularly in the longer speeches, he gave in the six months leading up to the war, Blairlinked the confrontation in Iraq to the MEPP. In his address to Parliament in September2002, the link was tenuously drawn:
There are two other issues with a bearing on this question which I will dealwith....
Secondly, I have no doubt that the Arab world knows it would be better
off without Saddam. Equally, I know there is genuine resentment at the stateof the Middle East Peace Process, which people want to see the internationalcommunity puruse with the same vigour. (Blair 24 September)
By the time of the debate over war in Iraq the next March, Blair was making the connectionmuch more firmly:
I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With onevoice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorismand WMD and we will help you meet it. We will mean what we say in any UNResolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarmvoluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choosethe UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importanceof re-starting the MEPP, which we will hold you to. (Blair 18 March)
The strength of the connection may have varied, but the fact of that connection is constant inBlair’s speeches. Iraq is set, by this means, into the context of the wider issue of peace in theMiddle East, and in particular to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian question. In particular,the war in Iraq is positioned as a precursor to a successful resolution of the this question. It isa connection that Bush does not draw in his speeches, where the Iraq war is a war to remove acentral threat in the war on terror.
|
| |
| |
|
|
11
What are we fighting for?
The final difference of some significance between the constitution of the war by Bush and
Blair concerns the broader framework within which each situates the war. Metaphoric
analysis reveals the connections that are produced between the (unknown) object and those
that are known. Both leaders attempt to make these connections to broader issues whose
importance is already recognised. One such connection is that I have just discussed: to the
war on terror in general and al Qaeda in particular. These two are, by late 2002, well
established as threats to which a response, even a military response, can be required. By
making the connections outlined in the previous section, both Blair and Bush produce the
War in Iraq as an instance of the War on Terror; Hussein as a surrogate for bin Laden. For
Bush this is sufficient. To sell this war in the UK, however, Blair needs more. It is not that
the war on terror is not a sufficient motivator in the UK, although it may well not be, but
rather, as I have shown, the connection for Blair is tenuous. Thus, he sets the war into other
contexts, making it not only an instance of the war on terror, but an instance of other issues as
well.
The first and most obvious of the contextual differences is the connection Blair draws
between the war in Iraq and the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). In most of the speeches,
and particularly in the longer speeches, he gave in the six months leading up to the war, Blair
linked the confrontation in Iraq to the MEPP. In his address to Parliament in September
2002, the link was tenuously drawn:
There are two other issues with a bearing on this question which I will deal
with....
Secondly, I have no doubt that the Arab world knows it would be better
off without Saddam. Equally, I know there is genuine resentment at the state
of the Middle East Peace Process, which people want to see the international
community puruse with the same vigour. (Blair 24 September)
By the time of the debate over war in Iraq the next March, Blair was making the connection
much more firmly:
I tell you what Europe should have said last September to the US. With one
voice it should have said: we understand your strategic anxiety over terrorism
and WMD and we will help you meet it. We will mean what we say in any UN
Resolution we pass and will back it with action if Saddam fails to disarm
voluntarily; but in return we ask two things of you: that the US should choose
the UN path and you should recognise the fundamental overriding importance
of re-starting the MEPP, which we will hold you to. (Blair 18 March)
The strength of the connection may have varied, but the fact of that connection is constant in
Blair’s speeches. Iraq is set, by this means, into the context of the wider issue of peace in the
Middle East, and in particular to a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian question. In particular,
the war in Iraq is positioned as a precursor to a successful resolution of the this question. It is
a connection that Bush does not draw in his speeches, where the Iraq war is a war to remove a
central threat in the war on terror.
|
|
 Convention | | All Academic Convention is the premier solution for your association's abstract management solutions needs. | | Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. | | Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! | | Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! | | Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. | | Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! | | Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! | | Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
