War on a Noun
In Judith Butler’s Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence, the author alludes to the lack of moral attention to war and violence, “Although we have heard, lately, about the abusive treatment of prisoners, and war ‘mistakes’ have been publicly exposed, it seems that neither the justification nor the cause of the war have been the focus of public intellectual attention,” (2).
Reasoning behind war was explored by journalists and political officials to justify the actions made by the government following the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. Former President Bush called for action in light of the terrorist attacks on the nation and vowed to bring justice to those who lost their lives that grave day. Though Bush rallied the troops and the country behind this strong message of aggression, it was not until after the war began that the true acts of terror were brought to the forefront of the nation’s mind.
In war, violence is the thread that links each set of barbaric events together. The ‘War on Terror’ ignited a fuse of anger and anguish in the hearts of Americans. In doing so, they justified the acts of violence that proceed in combat to their enemies as a way of retaliation for their loss and hurt. “We reserve ‘acts of terror’ for events such as the September 11 attacks on the United States, distinguishing these acts of violence from those that might be justified through foreign policy decisions or public declarations of war” (4).
These acts by the government spurred a war the not only looked to hurt those involved in the September 11 attacks, but anyone in the region who looked to injure the United States, “These terrorist acts were construed as ‘declarations of war’ by the Bush administration, which then positioned the military response as a justified act of self defense” (4). Self defense in an act of war is a hard concept to grasp. It is implied that an action was necessary in order to avoid harm by the opposing party that implemented the attack. However, in a war setting, both parties act in defense of the other, leading to unending acts of violence in order to ‘get even’. America used this concept in order to justify going to war by believing, ‘If they hurt me, it is only fair and understanding to hurt them in return so it never happens again. I deserve to defend myself’. Though unknowingly in acting upon this idea the country would lead to violence to in order to solve the issue at hand.
A terrorist means different things to different countries. Whether it be attacks on one’s own people within the country or with another country, in regards to the United States, the term allows the country to position itself as a victim of violence. “But it is one matter to suffer violence and quite another to use that fact to ground a framework in which one’s injury authorizes limitless aggression against targets that may or may not be related to the sources of one’s own suffering” (4).
Telling the story of September 11 can be done so in different ways with different angles, or frames. It allows the audience to gain understanding through a different lens. We look to these different perspectives in order to help understand the initial act of violence, to find the answer as to why it took place. However, no matter the amount of violence inflicted upon the opposition, the event continues to live on in the past: the past cannot be changed, nor can the minds that decided to attack America. This harsh reality is one that supporters of the war, citizens and policy makers alike, do not wish to hear. Many would rather look through the lens that depicts the terrorists as inhumane and as people who deserve to be punished for their actions. No matter the opinion, a war waged against a noun sees no end.
American acts of violence go unnoticed in war time. When the press covers a war and images of the injured opposition emerge, “it is relayed as part of the horror of war, but only in service of a criticism of the military’s capacity to aim its bombs right” (6). The death of another is not questioned if it means that an American life is spared. It brings to life the phrase, “Rather you than me”. The United States does not take responsibility to the destroyed life or take measures to see their own acts of terrorism upon the opposing country.
Sun Tzu echos Butler’s message of peace when she states, “The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.” In this work, the author is critical of the American government’s decision to wage war against terrorists in the Middle East following the attacks on September 11, 2001. The stories were framed in ways that led many Americans to feel that they must be either with the administration in their decision to wage war or against the country’s decision, leading skeptics to be seen as American traitors. Her work demonstrates that once the war was justified in the eyes of supporters and in doing so, the loss of innocent life was shed. As a declaration of self defense, the United States took to arms in order to finish the opposition. She continues by stating that though the war was made against terrorists, it was in this action that led to Americans taking on acts of violence themselves in order to combat the enemy’s defenses. The author leads the audience to question their own belief of war and the consequences that follow acts of violence.
