Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism. Support independent student journalism.
The Dartmouth
April 17, 2024 | Latest Issue
The Dartmouth

Truth Behind Terms

To the Editor:

Regarding Dan Rothfarb's "Martial Plan" (Oct. 18), "fascism" probably signifies the Italian Fascists for most, making Bush's remarks perhaps not redundant (German Nazis, Russian Communists, Italian Fascists).

Of course, it would be more proper to say that one of these terms is a bit too specific: Nazism. Now, there is something to be said, in speech, for padding to a list (i.e., to a length of at least three) when only two items are at hand. Usually, however, the wild card is stuck in the third slot. Why wasn't it here? Well, Nazism does pack a great connotative punch; much could be gained from equating the Taliban with the Nazis, obviously. Yet, there's another possibility: up until recently, "communism" would have been the first word out of anyone's mouth, but now with China liberalizing and joining WTO ... well, that probably got nixed pretty quickly.

But, that's the point: an obvious word was omitted and a phrase was deliberately rearranged from its original form to mask that omission. A lot of thought went into those three words, with respect to global detente. Put simply, Bush's administration, if not Bush himself, has foreign policy not just on the mind but as the mind, and not just militarily but also in terms of trade, diplomacy and coalition-building.

Though Rothfarb (mis-)quotes it, the U.S. government no longer uses "rogue nations." Nor are coalition members (as Rothfarb mentions, Pakistan) allies (the word Rothfarb uses) in the way that word would have been used fifteen years ago. The terms must be more precise because our foreign policy is more complex. The plot is no longer good versus evil, red versus blue, etc. From the binary mentality of much previous American foreign policy (and as applied in Rothfarb's column), this marks an enlightened but still powerful departure. It is practical and (as we see now) productive, and the only engaged style of foreign policy to meet emerging non-nation threats and to affect deliberately non-hegemonic peaceful relations.

"Martial" is a neat play on "Marshall," but we're in a whole different era. Recognizing this is Bush's genius.