....LMB: "Metaphoric Smithereens"....

February 24, 2003

I've been thinking a lot about metaphors in political discussion because they're being used so often to try to discredit anti-war activists at the moment. Of course, no metaphor holds up under intense scrutiny, but some of them don't even hold up to a second glance. So, it's time for me to kick some metaphors in the nuts.

The first I keep hearing is the Appeasement Metaphor. It is usually said in a haughty nasal tone, like "These protesters remind me a bit of Neville Chamberlain before World War II." The implication being that protesters are being "soft" on Saddam Hussein the way that England and France were "soft" on Adolf Hitler. Therefore we anti-war activists are responsible for the Holocaust or WWII or something.

This metaphor falls apart in so many ways.

Let's look at the scenarios.

In the 1930s, Germany had violated many aspects of the Treaty of Versailles, their WWI surrender agreement. They had built a huge, technologically- advanced army and taken over/merged with Austria. In 1938, Adolf Hitler demanded that Germany be given the Sudetenland, big chunk of Czechoslovakia. If Germany got this land, they would stop their efforts for expansion. If they didn't.... In order to prevent war, Britain and France agreed to give the Sudetenland to Germany (Czechoslovakia had no say in the matter). Britain and France cheered that they had achieved peace, and then Hitler conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia. With 60+ years of searing 20-20 hindsight, it is commonly agreed that Appeasement was one of the stupidest foreign policy moves ever. Because all of us 21st century folks know that you shouldn't trust Hitler, Britain and France of the 1930s should also have known not to trust Hitler.

In 1980, Saddm Hussein tried to take over Iran, and after nearly a decade, failed. In 1990, Saddam Hussein took over Kuwait, and then was forcefully routed and kicked out by a U.S.-led international force. Iraq was then bombed and embargoed for over a decade. Iraq may have violated some aspects of its own surrender treaty, and the U.S. argues that therefore Iraq should be invaded and Saddam Hussein should be removed from power. In this scenario, "appeasement" is to disagree that Iraq should be invaded, or prefer that weapons inspectors continue to scour Iraq for "weapons of mass destruction" and find evidence of these alleged treaty violations.

Probably the biggest differences here are 1) Germany demanded land; Iraq has not demanded anything of anyone, and 2) 1930s Germany was a military juggernaut; 2003 Iraq is a frail shell of its 1991 military self, which was easily routed even then.

The analogy also assumes that things would've been much different, much better, if Germany had not been appeased. But would they? The implication is that WWII could have been avoided if only there had been no appeasement. But no one knows what would've happened. Maybe Germany would have been repelled. Maybe they would have easily destroyed their two unprepared rivals. Hard to say.

So how does Iraq figure in? If we refuse to attack Iraq, will it conquer or seek to conquer all of the region? In its current military state, that seems unlikely.

The next analogy is one that popped up in my memory lately. Right before the U.S. war on Afghanistan began (the 2001 one), there was a joke being passed around by pro-war folks. It went something like "when you see someone protesting, go up to them and punch them in the face. When they punch you back, smile and say that's what the U.S. is doing, fighting back when necessary." I admit, this pissed me off, the whole smug "they're just hypocrites who don't know what they're talking about" thing. I also didn't like the idea of strangers punching me in the face as part of some alleged object lesson (I tend to oppose most Jake-face-punching policies).

Now, the problem with this metaphor is degree. I've thought an awful lot about force, power and violence since 9-11, both figuratively and literally. When you take any action, the more force you use, the more likely you are to cause unintended damage. For example, cutting someone with a scalpel during a surgery is a reasonable application of violence, because of its limited use and its precision. But when you use more force, like cutting them with a hatchet or chainsaw, you are causing huge amounts of unintended damage. This is one of the reasons that modern warfare is so catastrophic: modern armies try to achieve surgical goals with hatchets.

It reminds me of the 1999 war against Serbia. The idea was to protect the Albanian Kosovars from attack by the Serbians. To achieve this goal, U.S. planes dropped bombs from tens of thousands of feet in the air. At the time, I argued that if the U.S. really cared about achieving this goal, they should send ground troops in to physically prevent such attacks, either by getting in the way or attacking the attackers. Much less physical force would have been used, with much less destruction.

Which is why this analogy falls apart. A fist is a much more precise instrument of physical force than is a cluster bomb or a daisy-cutter. And frankly, I would whole-heartedly support an elite team of U.S. forces springing into action in Iraq, punching every evil-doer in sight until Iraq was disarmed and/or until Saddam Hussein was overthrown. It's when you start using high-powered explosives and depleted uranium shells in areas highly populated with innocent folks that I take up opposition.

And finally, we have Bush's explanation for why 11 million peace protesters don't make a difference: "Size of protest, it's like deciding, 'Well I'm going to decide policy based up on a focus group'. The role of a leader is to decide policy based upon the security - in this case - security of the people."

Actually, this could lead to an interesting debate about the role of leaders in a democratic republic: do the people elect a leader and then respect that leader's judgement, or do they elect a representative who they expect to respond to their wishes while in office? We see Bush's stance on the issue, he's a "you've elected me, now I do my thing" man.

But Bush's comment is bizarre because "size of crowd" is more or less what American democracy (actually, America is a republic, not a democracy. But when you call it "American republicanism," people get confused). The number of people who show up at the ballot box IS the democracy.

And you have to see that there's a difference between a small group of 5-15 people in a quasi-office setting answering questions because they are bored or because someone offered them money, and tens of thousands of people sometimes travelling extreme distances to march around in 10 DEGREE NEW YORK WEATHER of their own free will to express their strongly-held opinions.

Bush's comment is also amusing because I'm sure the Bush administration makes extensive use of focus groups, at least during election campaigns.

In conclusion, metaphors are stupid. Thank you.