Motivating War
Contents
War is a motivational problem
Warmaking of whatever intensity requires public commitment. Total war
particularly requires public commitment. That commitment comes when leadership
develops a strong motivational rhetoric.
- War requires supreme sacrifice. In war, people willingly forfeit
life itself for purposes defined by the community. A rhetoric sufficient
to fight wars must provide motivation for troops who enter battle with
their lives as the price. The motivations which drive armies stretch from
a greater cause such as freedom and liberty all the way through a commitment
to the "profession" of arms. All wars require a rhetoric to motivate
their soldiery.
- Rhetoric must motivate the national commitment that distorts the
society to the war's purpose. Particularly in total war, the community
alters its day to day activities in fundamental ways. The rhetoric must
justify such a commitment to the war effort for the whole community. War
is a national act and requires a national motivation.
- Coordination of the War Effort. Language must structure the
community to perform the day to day activities necessary to the war's success.
For example, leadership in time of war loses much of its democratic quality.
Military chain of commands much more typically characterize the community
with concentrations of power in particular people. That requires an altered
language which diminishes criticism, open debate, and emphasizes the necessity
of unquestionly following leadership. We also need to develop a way of
talking about the importance of sacrifice that allows us to bury the dead
as heroes, thus motivating the sacrifice of these and others.
In short, we can fight wars successfully or unsuccessfully depending
on the motivational power which the discourse of leaders and the community
provides to motivate the fight.
Rhetorical Campaigns for War
If we study the rhetoric with which we go to war it has a particular
pattern. All of the following must develop, and they tend to develop in
the order indicated.
- The War opens with a justification for the war. American Presidents
are required by the Constitution, the War Powers Act, and by the success
of the venture to request Congressional approval for war. Generally, Presidents
have found that getting such support is one rhetorical strategy required
for effective war. And generally, they appeal for that support in a speech
-- either to Congress or the American public through the mass media --
which establishes the justification for the war.
- A propaganda campaign maintains the commitment. In this century,
propaganda campaigns are a feature of warfare. Although the term "propaganda"
is often used as a pejorative for the rhetoric of the enemy, the rhetorical
strategies which characterize such campaigns are used by all combatants.
Militaries oppose democratic and open communications in time of war because
of the threat open communication offers to secrecy; the failure to maintain
secrecy threatens their troops and their power. Propaganda campaigns diffuse
the justification for the war through the people of the community and provide
ways of maintaining the strength of the commitment.
- A day-to-day rhetoric of war coordinates the community's war effort.
A complex web of activities such as victory gardens, war production, economic
controls, and so forth develop a vocabulary and a motivational framework
that turns the normal life of the community toward productive contribution
to the war.
Justification for War
American leaders have typical ways in which they justify war. The first
job of American Presidents as War leaders is to justify the action.
- Central theme is <rights>. The concept of <rights>
is a particular symbol -- an ideograph -- which Americans use to rhetorically
enforce limitations on governments and on other people. The American use
of <rights> is grounded in the strategy of the American Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution's Bill of Rights. This ideograph,
because it is a symbolic reservoir of what the American community values
enough to sacrifice or die for, becomes a central symbol in the rhetoric
of Presidents who seek to justify war.
- In the 20th century, <democracy> and <law> has been
the main support for <rights>. Typically, there are other terms
-- we might call them "God terms" because of their power -- which
interact with <rights> to form the justification. In the 20th century,
these terms have been <democracy> and <law>. Thus, we come
to think of those we fight as anti-democratic and violators of international
law. These three ideographs form a triumvirate of ideals.
- Presidents build a crisis for this sacred American ideal. Real
events of the world must be transformed into the relationships of these
three ideographs. Thus, we must contextualize the deaths at Pearl Harbor
into violations of basic human decency. We must describe an Iraqi army
moving into Kuwait as a violation of a people's rights and of international
law.
- The rhetoric of war features blame as strong and focused on an enemy.
Savagery of the enemy is often a theme. Our rationality contrasted with
the irrationality of the enemy is another. Typically, the rhetoric of war
contains strong narratives of the kindness and skill of our troops and
the evilness of the enemy.
- War for Americans must be the final resort. Typically, Presidents
tell narratives of the events leading up to war that feature American efforts
to avoid war. Americans must be dragged into war by war loving enemies.
Presidents weave these themes and strategies into a rhetoric which justifies
the commitment of the nation to war.
Our Study
With World War II as our object of study, arguably the most necessary of 20th century wars, we want to look at:
- Franklin Roosevelt seeking to maneuver public opinion into opposition to fascism before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (his Arsenal of Democracy speech)
- Roosevelt's marshaling of Pearl Harbor into the commitment to go to war
- The propaganda messages constructed to motivate the citizen army