(Blitz-invasion?; 06-02; p.3)
• Characterising one's own acting as harmless
By word-creations, re-interpretations and deliberate vagueness
of language one's own acts are re-defined or substituted as riskless,
"business as usual" etc.
Latest examples are naming an international law breaking invasion
of a sovereign state simply "regime-change" or naming
pressurising politics and waging war as "pre-emptive or preventive
Considering the last example, one may as well find a re-interpretation
of roles: the aggressor depicts himself as victim, which does
nothing but hindering the offender in advance.
Even the deliberate vagueness can be shown with it: "pre-emption"
describes a concept within the framework of deterrence that means
using one's weapons immediately after an attack on them has been
confirmed, "using them before losing them" in other
words; "prevention" does not have such a specific meaning,
the term may be denoted by anything wished for.
• Presenting "just" causes and justified
One's own warfare is characterised as just and this way justified.
Again, a concept of international law from the middle-ages is
re-interpreted: in the historical context, it meant a limitation
of warfare - the sovereign in the middle-ages no longer had an
unconditional right to wage war but needed to prove his authority
and give good reasons for this; moreover, he had to prove that
war and the way it was waged were adequate in respect to its cause.
In our days however, after war has been banned by international
law and military actions are only legal in case of self-defence
and subject to other decisions of the United Nations' security
council, this concept leads to de-limit warfare. (For a good recent
account of this cf.: Schildmann, Ch: "Die Bomben aus Stahl,
das Pathos aus Hollywood" [translated: Bombs made of steel,
pathos made in Hollywood]. In: Frankfurter Rundschau no. 297,
D2-edition, p. 14. 21. December 2002.)
The cause of war as well as the envisaged post-war alternatives
are put in the centre, whereas all actions of war are not. Peaceful
post-war states become prospected and in case, there are some
groups fighting for their own reasons, they will be depicted as
legitimate opposition and guarantors of those peaceful and legal
states. (read on here)