In President Obama’s recent trip to Afghanistan he told the troops that he would not send troops anywhere that was not “absolutely necessary” (http://frontpagemag.com/2009/10/27/mission-abandoned-%e2%80%93-by-alan-w-dowd/). When President Bush started the war in Afghanistan he justified it as a crusade, vengeance for 911, a Texas style hanging for Al-Qaida and killing the ones responsible for 911. I never heard him state that he was going to bring the terrorists responsible for 911 to justice. He may have made that statement but most of the statements were along the line previously described. Using these rhetorical ploys Bush was able to get the support he needed to start the war in Afghanistan. Hatred is always a strong emotion while justice is emotionally a bit puny. Bush started the war against Afghanistan based on rhetoric about getting Al-Qaida. To date Al-Qaida is still around and our rhetoric about our enemy Al-Qaida is also used freely about the Taliban. While no one would suggest that the Taliban is a great group of guys, they were not the stated reason why we went to war in Afghanistan. Fanning the flames of 911, Bush was able to start a war. His rhetoric became President Obama’s “absolute necessity”.
I have previously stated that as leader of the United States, President Bush should have stated that we would bring Al-Qaida to justice. Preferably, this would be done through the United Nations, the World Court and pressure from the World Monetary Fund (in Afghanistan and Pakistan). President Bush’s rhetoric should have made justice the guiding principle. We would have kept the sympathies of the world and made justice the value that everyone, no matter what their political persuasion, sympathetic to the universality of justice. Vengeance and hatred on the other hand are regionally specific. Those that hate and want vengeance are driven by their own internal necessity not by any universal appeal, by an ideal that everyone could think is worthwhile. As I have also mentioned in another paper, barring the earnest attempt to get justice in a region of the world where justice is highly lacking, the alternative would be US Special Forces, the CIA, mercenaries, and covert bribes and pressure. Don’t think it can’t be done; we had a whole cold war based in Afghanistan against the Russians using these techniques many years ago. However, the political rhetoric should always be concentrated on universal values not regional and circumstantial emotions.
When our hatred drives our rhetoric the rhetoric can take on a life of its own in popular culture. The switch from admirable, universal ideals to self-aggrandizing, raw and base instincts that become yet another mindless iteration of the past; it becomes its own necessity. The necessity driven by hatred always ends badly. The necessity driven by high ideals, historically always ends well. Examples of the latter include the founding fathers, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., Jesus, etc. Unfortunately, the earlier is typically the blunder of humankind.
Since rhetoric based in base instinct got us into Afghanistan, I think President Obama had no other choice but to use rhetoric to get us out of Afghanistan. It has been done before (Vietnam comes to mind) – we declare victory for x, y, z reasons and get the hell out. We pursue the cause of bringing Al-Qaida to justice using the previously discussed strategies. As it is, now we are looking at an endless war that has the tendency to expand as these situations typically do.
Another example of rhetoric gone badly is the recent militant rhetoric used by the Republican Party against the Democrats. The Republican leaders play on the strong emotions of hatred and violence with inflammatory rhetoric and “wash their hands” of it when their words start taking a life of its own in popular behavior. If you want to understand how Hitler was able to do what he did you can see the beginnings of it in these kinds of rhetorical ploys.
While personally, I have never opposed capital punishment in cases where there is “no shadow of doubt” about the defendant’s guilt, I have opposed it based on the rhetorical dynamic described above. When the necessity of rhetoric is allowed to run rampant Texas style executions become more and more “normal” and statistics about wrongful deaths and ethnic inequalities of the death penalty become more and more prevalent.
President Obama should have held to his higher ideals and not adopted the rhetorical necessity handed to him by the Bush administration.
On a more philosophical level, the dynamic of rhetorical necessity tells us something about human’s unique way of being-in-the-world. Our narratives of history become our cannon. The ill-conceived actions that typically follow continue to create generations of veterans and Republican voters that sanctify our motivations and our histories. The perceived alternative would be to exist in meaninglessness. God, the self-evident and the a priori surround us as witnesses to our ultimate worthiness and meaning. In the margins of our hubris plays the alter-ego, the lie of truth and the future seeds of our own undoing.