On Using the Language of “War” for Stuff that is Not War

A reader writes:

I know I’m behind, but I had the chance to listen to your podcast episode where you and Simcha Fisher disagreed over the use of warfare language in response to the Paris terrorist attacks (and terror attacks in general, I think).

I thought I would weigh in.  Let me say, too, that I am a big fan of Ms. Fisher’s work and normally agree with everything she says.

To get right down to it, in this case I agree with you.  Here’s why.

The use of the term “war” carries psychological baggage that will interfere with all kinds of related issues, from smart strategy to confront terrorism to how we treat refugees.  Invoking “war” implies a sense of scale that far exceeds the scale of violence ISIS is capable of bringing to American shores and a sense of risk that is far higher than the likelihood any American will fall victim to ISIS.  The problem with failing to properly scale the threat is that we need to properly scale if we are to properly respond.

The use of the term “war” also carries a certain level of being okay with things we wouldn’t normally be okay with.  When you’re at war, collateral damage happens (i.e., innocents die).  When you’re at war, torture is a little less repulsive.  When you’re at war, you have to be vigilant and watch for infiltrators.  When you’re at war, your survival might be contingent on “their” demise.  This is why the language of war is invoked at all.  This logic has underpinned practically every mass human rights catastrophe I can think of, from the Holocaust to the Rwandan Genocide and beyond.

The fear of ISIS and refugees has more to do with the exceptional brutality of ISIS violence than anything.  Analogies that some are tossing around about discarding a whole bowl of grapes if one were poisoned are absurd.  Should we stop driving because we never know when a drunk driver could have infiltrated the ranks of sober drivers?  Should we shut down the roads?  Of course not, yet drunk drivers kill 10,000 Americans a year and injure 300,000, and certainly being hit by a drunk driver is as unpredictable as being a victim of terrorism.

Anyway, like you, I don’t have many solutions.  I do believe, however, that an effective military response, a smart prioritization of our resources to deal with the threat, a humane approach to the refugee crisis, etc., cannot happen unless we properly scale the threat.  Using the term “war” undermines that.

I agree.