(To read the entire "War is War” series, please click here.)
Last post, I described the “war is war” crowd--a sub-set of the national security community
that wishes we could return to the days when wars were more about fighting, violence and death than about political realities.
Among the host of issues with that phrase, one sticks out more than the rest: the phrase “war is war” is just bad rhetoric.
War is war is really saying all war is similar. Except all wars aren’t the same the same way politics the same. Kim Jung Il’s succession plan has nothing to do with America’s midterm elections. Both are examples of politics. Both require maintaining or changing power. But they’re more different than they are the same; you definitely wouldn’t use the same playbook or tactics to win at either.
And World War II is like the war in Afghanistan, but is also different in just as many ways if not more. Both are wars, neither closely relates to one another. Some lessons can be drawn, but if you’re foolish enough to use the same play book, you’ve gone off track.
This is the biggest issue with the "war-is-war"-iors. More than anything else, the “war is war” statement doesn’t say anything; it doesn’t actually define war in any way. It recalls when the Supreme Court tried to decide what is pornography. As Justice Potter Stewart said, “I know it when I see it.” The “war is war” crowd, it seems, would like to apply the same rigorously vague standards--which have since been replaced by the Supreme Court--to wars. And as the Supreme Court learned, relying on undefined terms as a long term strategy very rarely works out.
This problem seems to be unique to the study of war. I just don’t see a political theorists bogging down with the definition of politics when they are in the middle of an election campaign. Imagine a busy campaign staff conducting detailed electoral polling, developing campaign ads and arguing for the merits of a political position. Then imagine in back there was was an intellectual theorist who constantly complained about the current election strategy, because “politics is politics” and if they only read more Machiavelli we wouldn’t be in this position.
No other subject on the planet uses a self-referring definition to prove a point. Would a coach say “sports is sports” when preparing for a football (American) game? Would a CEO say “business is business” when rolling out a new product launch? Would a director say “entertainment is entertainment” when making a movie? Would a doctor say “medicine is medicine” even though he is a family care physician and the patient requires open heart surgery? Would a scientist say “science is science” then opine on evolutionary biology when they study astronomy?
Of course this would get us no where, fast. I’m not an expert in logical fallacies, but it seems like the “war is war” crowd is using a “begging the question” fallacy. They assume “war is war”--hence violent, destructive and conducted by massive armies--then proceed with their proof that was in the preface. I don’t like the phrase “war is war” for plenty of reasons, but this one gets me the most. It is sloppy thinking.