 |
Waging Wars in Iraq: The Metaphoric Constitution of Wars and Enemies
| |
| | Unformatted Document Text:
13
In terms of the broad brush strokes, the object each constitutes is very similar indeed. Bothleaders tell a consonant story throughout the six months. It is a story of a war made necessaryby a threat posed by a dictatorial regime seeking weapons of mass destruction in a context inwhich ‘terrorists’, to which the regime has (close) connections, seek these weapons. What ismore, it is a regime that has pursued the weapons for eleven years, in defiance of the UnitedNations, and through a programme of deceit. It is worth noting two important elements thatdo not feature in this common story (nor, indeed, in the differences that emerge in a finer-grained reading). Neither leader constitutes this action as UN enforcement operation — thereis no suggestion from either man that the resolutions of the 1991 war make possible, or evennecessary, the 2003 war. Secondly, and rather more significantly given the present discourse,there is no attempt by either leader to legitimate the war as one of liberation. Both note thatthe Iraqi people will be better of without Saddam Hussein as their leader, but this is portrayedas a welcome side-effect of a war fought for reasons of clear and present danger.
The differences that emerge from a reading of the web of metaphoric connections that eachdraws through these speeches are subtle. The most obvious is the difference between thenature of the tyranny that is ranged in opposition to US and UK forces. Bush constitutesHussein as ‘the child of Stalin’, and the Iraqi regime as the Soviet Union. As such, heproduces an enemy that has recent resonance in the United States — and perhaps asimportantly, one that was recently and cheaply defeated. The Soviet Union, furthermore, wasa nuclear-armed enemy, and one accused at times of supporting terror. By producing Iraq asthe Soviet Union, therefore, Bush bolsters his claims about weapons of mass destruction andties to terror. By contrast, the Europeans were rarely as frightened of the Soviet Union aswere the people of the United States, nor were they as ready to accept links between theUSSR and terrorism. Hitler, on the other hand, is an undisputed evil, and dangers ofappeasing Hitler almost universally accepted. Blair, therefore, constitutes Iraq throughmetaphoric connections to Hitler and the 1930s. It is a skilful set of rhetorical moves,because such analogies are treated with the utmost suspicion, and so Blair draws theconnections while overtly seeming to deny them
The differences between Hussein-as-Stalin and Saddam-as-Hitler metaphors deployed byeach are closely connected to the links each draws between Iraq and contemporary terrorists. Bolstered by the production of Iraq as analogous to the USSR, Bush is able to connect theIraqi regime directly to Islamist terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular. Thecombination is a seamless and, in the United States at least, apparently compelling package. Blair is much more circumspect. He produces Iraq part of a larger problem that also includesal Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists. Initially, in a move he does not follow through, Blairproduces Iraq and al Qaeda as part of the problems that come with global interdependence,along with climate change and poverty. Even when those connections are not continued,however, he does not make the direct connections that Bush does between Iraq and al Qaeda,but rather juxtaposes them as threats to be met in such a way that the distinctions betweenthem are elided to produce a collective problem.
The differences between the object produced in each of the sets of speeches are surprisingsmall, but nonetheless revealing. In terms of the initial political puzzle which propelled thisinvestigation, they suggest that Blair recognised his difficulties, and worked to produce themost salable object he could. He seems to recognise that he cannot make the kind of overtclaims of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda that are possible for Bush, presumably because these
|
| |
| |
|
|
13
In terms of the broad brush strokes, the object each constitutes is very similar indeed. Both
leaders tell a consonant story throughout the six months. It is a story of a war made necessary
by a threat posed by a dictatorial regime seeking weapons of mass destruction in a context in
which ‘terrorists’, to which the regime has (close) connections, seek these weapons. What is
more, it is a regime that has pursued the weapons for eleven years, in defiance of the United
Nations, and through a programme of deceit. It is worth noting two important elements that
do not feature in this common story (nor, indeed, in the differences that emerge in a finer-
grained reading). Neither leader constitutes this action as UN enforcement operation — there
is no suggestion from either man that the resolutions of the 1991 war make possible, or even
necessary, the 2003 war. Secondly, and rather more significantly given the present discourse,
there is no attempt by either leader to legitimate the war as one of liberation. Both note that
the Iraqi people will be better of without Saddam Hussein as their leader, but this is portrayed
as a welcome side-effect of a war fought for reasons of clear and present danger.
The differences that emerge from a reading of the web of metaphoric connections that each
draws through these speeches are subtle. The most obvious is the difference between the
nature of the tyranny that is ranged in opposition to US and UK forces. Bush constitutes
Hussein as ‘the child of Stalin’, and the Iraqi regime as the Soviet Union. As such, he
produces an enemy that has recent resonance in the United States — and perhaps as
importantly, one that was recently and cheaply defeated. The Soviet Union, furthermore, was
a nuclear-armed enemy, and one accused at times of supporting terror. By producing Iraq as
the Soviet Union, therefore, Bush bolsters his claims about weapons of mass destruction and
ties to terror. By contrast, the Europeans were rarely as frightened of the Soviet Union as
were the people of the United States, nor were they as ready to accept links between the
USSR and terrorism. Hitler, on the other hand, is an undisputed evil, and dangers of
appeasing Hitler almost universally accepted. Blair, therefore, constitutes Iraq through
metaphoric connections to Hitler and the 1930s. It is a skilful set of rhetorical moves,
because such analogies are treated with the utmost suspicion, and so Blair draws the
connections while overtly seeming to deny them
The differences between Hussein-as-Stalin and Saddam-as-Hitler metaphors deployed by
each are closely connected to the links each draws between Iraq and contemporary terrorists.
Bolstered by the production of Iraq as analogous to the USSR, Bush is able to connect the
Iraqi regime directly to Islamist terrorists in general and al Qaeda in particular. The
combination is a seamless and, in the United States at least, apparently compelling package.
Blair is much more circumspect. He produces Iraq part of a larger problem that also includes
al Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists. Initially, in a move he does not follow through, Blair
produces Iraq and al Qaeda as part of the problems that come with global interdependence,
along with climate change and poverty. Even when those connections are not continued,
however, he does not make the direct connections that Bush does between Iraq and al Qaeda,
but rather juxtaposes them as threats to be met in such a way that the distinctions between
them are elided to produce a collective problem.
The differences between the object produced in each of the sets of speeches are surprising
small, but nonetheless revealing. In terms of the initial political puzzle which propelled this
investigation, they suggest that Blair recognised his difficulties, and worked to produce the
most salable object he could. He seems to recognise that he cannot make the kind of overt
claims of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda that are possible for Bush, presumably because these
|
|
 Convention | | Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events! | | 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. |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
