Daniel O'Rourke, CPJ member, contributes a regular column to the Dunkirk Observer. The following, "No More War -- Metaphors,"  was published on November 23, 2006.

Franklin Roosevelt once famously said, “I hate war.”  I do too, but I also hate war metaphors.  I hate the war on poverty, the war on drugs, the war on terrorism, the war on cancer.  Don’t misread me, I’m all for making sustained major efforts to mitigate the pain and suffering caused by drug misuse, poverty, terrorism and cancer. It’s the metaphor I hate.

“War” not only implies sustained effort, but violent effort. It connotes physical force, shock and awe, killing and death.  It is a bloody metaphor; moreover it’s simplistic and inaccurate. It’s inaccurate because it conjures up images of parades with grateful crowds welcoming victors in a snowstorm of confetti.  We will never have that kind of victory over cancer, drugs, poverty or terrorism.  Hopefully, humanity will make progress scientifically, politically and morally in all these areas, but at best it will mitigate these evils not obliterate them.

Jesus said, “The poor you have with you always.” (John 12:8) He was far wiser and more realistic than Lyndon Johnson who declared an all out war on poverty. Neither was Jesus cutting and running from helping the poor; he advocated feeding the hungry, clothing the naked and housing the homeless.  Today he’d want to increase the minimum wage, but he knew, and we should all acknowledge, that despite these valuable efforts the poor will always be with us. Certainly Johnson made significant gains in reducing poverty, but poverty will never be eradicated.  It will never surrender as the Japanese did on the
battleship Missouri.

Neither will there be a victory in the war on drugs. I write here not of legitimate pharmaceuticals but of recreational drugs. As Escohotado and Symington have pointed out in A Brief History of Drugs from the Stone Age to the Stoned Age, for thousands of years before modern history humans have been chewing betel, smoking opium and drinking wine.  They still do, although the drugs used vary by culture and age group. Trendy fashions in drug choice change, but there is always some drug to make us feel good—in the short run.  What it does to our bodies, minds and souls in the long run is something else altogether.

My point is that, like the poor, drug users whatever the drug of choice will always be with us. No war will conquer them. Societies, moreover, are selective and not always rational in their efforts to regulate recreational drugs.  Americans are very permissive with alcohol and tobacco, but spend billions to apprehend, arrest and imprison those involved with marijuana and heroin.  Whether we should do this is not the question here (although it’s a question worth pondering). My point is that a war on drugs no matter how militantly we wage it will never achieve a clear-cut victory.

What is true about the “wars” on poverty and drugs is true in spades of the so-called war on terrorism. Of course, we should oppose terrorism economically, diplomatically and use any surveillance allowable under the law. In that way we prevent many terrorist acts, but we will never completely wipe out terrorism. There will never be a World War II type
victory. Hopefully, we can keep acts of terrorism rare, minor and exceptional, but we will never eradicate them.  We will never win that war.

Politicians who publicly admit that, however, would cut their political throats. Opponents would label them traitors and defeatists.  And voters would believe the slander, for they have confused the metaphor with the reality. If there is a “war” on terrorism, they reason, there must be a victory.  They believe the illusion that the appropriate reaction to terrorism is a war like the one we waged against the Nazis and the Japanese.  It is not.  The war on terror is only metaphor and the metaphor misleads us.

We in the west are susceptible to this kind of militaristic language.  Our religions are full of it. Listen to King David in the psalms, “Blessed be the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle.” (Ps. 144:1)  Or the book of Exodus: “The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.” (15:3)

And Christians are no better. Many will remember this hymn.

Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!

It’s not only the Muslims who have jihads. Sadly, the holy war concept is ecumenical and inter-faith.

Let me end on a lighter note with the story of the minister who gave a rousing sermon to an unusually large congregation at an Easter service.   He preached on enlisting in the army of the risen Lord.  After the service greeting these high-holyday Christians at the church door, he said to one whom he hadn’t seen since Christmas,  “Joe, I hope now you
will be a regular soldier in the army of the Lord.”  Joe leaned forward and whispered in the minister’s ear, “Reverend, I’m in the Secret Service!”

When it comes to military metaphors of armies, battles and wars--whether we hear them from pulpits, government podiums or television anchors—like Joe we should be skeptical. Such metaphors mislead and deceive us.

Daniel O’Rourke is a member of the Federation of Christian Ministries and CORPUS.  He’s a married Catholic priest, retired from the administration at State University of New York at Fredonia.  A mediator for the Center for Resolution and Justice, he lives in Cassadaga, NY.  His column appears the second and fourth Thursday of each month.  Comments may be sent to orourke@netsync.net