Volume CXXXIII, Number 17 February 22, 2002 f

'Axis' polarizes split
ALEX DUNCAN

In recent days and weeks, it seems as if President Bush's "axis of evil" has become the hot new phrase for the government (and subsequently in the media as well), taking over after months of "bin Laden," "Taliban," and "al Qaeda." In many respects, that's a good thing. However, at the same time, I think that we need to tone down our rhetoric a bit and adopt a less inflammatory tone as we begin to address problems outside of Afghanistan.

Sure, "axis of evil" is direct and clear (and sounds really good in a speech), but it only further polarizes the current split between those who are America-friendly and those who are not. If we're really going to solve the problem of terrorism in the future, we're going to have to stop fueling the fires of hatred toward the United States. Labeling other countries and people as "evil" is no way to start.

Clearly, threats to the U.S. still exist and must be eliminated. This can't be accomplished without the use of force, and we should utilize our military when necessary, whether it's in Iraq, Somalia, or elsewhere.

At the same time however, we need to ensure that we do so in a specific, calculated, and most importantly, emotionless manner. Our military is a serious threat to any country in the world, and as such, when we make it known that we consider a country or group to be a menace, we need not tack on the stigma of some higher purpose, a "good vs. evil" cliché. Doing so only gives people a reason to fight with motivation beyond personal safety. It gives them a cause to believe in, not only during the course of hostilities, but in the future as well. When we label others as evil, we immediately cast the same pall on ourselves, in their eyes. In this battle against terrorism, where perceptions mean everything, that's a mistake.

The root cause of terrorism is misperception. Some perceive the United States as an aggressive, imperial superpower, with no regard for the customs or interests of others. We Americans, of course, would certainly disagree.

However, our actual motives are, in fact, unimportant. The way in which others identify us is what shapes their opinions, not what we really are, or what we believe ourselves to be. Therefore, when our leaders refer to other states and citizens as "evil," they are not helping to change the common perception of the United States as a superpower at odds with all others.
"Evil" is far too general a word to publicly indict an individual or country for its actions. Moreover, it implies a religious or biblical type of negativity, the very sort that inspires terrorists such as those in al Qaeda. Jihad is derived from such religious motivation. We need to separate ourselves from this concept. If we reinforce the idea of a religious or moral split between western and other nations, terrorism's proliferation will continue, and we will be partially responsible.

Of course, I understand that there are strategic reasons for the government's heavy language. If we make a commotion about a country's practices and then threaten to invade, maybe we'll intimidate them into submitting to our desires. Or, if we talk tough about certain leaders, perhaps that nation's people will rise up and take those individuals out of power before we have to.

However, there are better and more effective ways to go about such psychological warfare, as opposed to general and broad-based threats. Present these countries and individuals with specific requirements, and suggest the repercussions of failing to act (namely, the unerring efficacy of the U.S. military). Such an approach is clear and cold, with little room for manipulation for the purposes of motivation. There's no religious context and no larger issue.

In the wake of what happened in September, there's a lot of support for action overseas with (understandably) plenty of emotion behind it. Thus far our government-in particular President Bush and his Cabinet-has done a great job of utilizing our military in conjunction with support at home. However, let's remember that there's another war that we're fighting on top of the military one: a war of perception. Win both the military and image fights, and we will be successful. Conversely, win the military war now, but lose the war of perception, and we'll have to fight this battle all over again down the road.

So, as we employ our military might where it's needed, let's also tone down our talk and cut words like "evil" out of our international vocabulary. That way we'll win on both fronts, and for good.