Концепт "Война" в языковой картине мира (сопоставительное исследование на материале английского и русского языков)

The world has for some time assumed that America cannot, or will not, widespread casualties if the fight proves brutal and bloody. President Saddam Hussein obviously thinks that with enough difficulties and enough deaths America will fold, as it did in Somalia and Lebanon, and retreat. And of course there was Vietnam.

The international assumption is that Vietnam showed that modern America is incapable of accepting heavy battlefield losses, no matter how just or legitimate the conflict. But this cliche demands examination. For ten years of the Vietnam War, from 1964 to 1974, America showed it could take bodybags - every day.

Fifty thousand оf them in all. I remember each Friday night on local TV they would show the high school photos of the New York area boys who died that week. They all had short hair, high cheekbones and big smiles, and it gave you a feeling of emptiness and disorder to see their pictures across the screen.

The idea was that if you go in with overwhelming force, victory will beat the bodybags home. All of which is understandable as strategy, but it has also tended to support the assumption that Americans can't take battlefiels losses, that they've grown soft and unused to suffering, that ultimately they don't want to pay a price. What is the truth? The truth is no one knows. Those in the US Administration do not know. They can't go to a mall and ask: "By the way, would a thousand deaths be all right with you? Would five thousand?" When Paul Wolfowitz was pushed by the New York Times, the Deputy Defense Secretary, a prime and early supporter of an invasion, said: "In the end, it has to come down to a careful weighing of things we can't know with precision, the costs of an action versus the costs of inaction, the costs of inaction now versus the costs of inaction later".

The American people themselves are nor sure exactly what as a nation they would be willing to sustain and accept. How could they be? It will be a day-by-day decision. And different parts of the country will likely offer different answers on different timetables. If you asked the question, "What kind of losses can America accept?" down South, where Americans are both sweeter and tougher, the answer might likely be, "Well, it's a war, and war is hell, and in war you gotta do what's needed to be done". That would probably be the consistent response from George Bush's Republican base: we can take a lot to do what's right. And last four words -"to do what's right" - are the key to the answer.

The novelist Tom Clancy, a great, a great respecter of the military and appreciator of Americans, told me: "The American people are the same people they were in 1942." We can take losses, he said, we are just as tough as ever. But there has to be a good reason. The people will accept what's necessary but not what isn't. Meaning the American people will suffer through and accept if they believe the war is needed and America's position is right.

It may be that America will find out how high a price it is willing to pay to oust and pacify Iraq. Hopes for an end to war that comes sooner rather than later -and with minimal loss rather than maximum - continue, and with good reason. But it may be turning tough indeed, and the words Bloody Baghdad may be about to become famous.

My own hunch is that Americans are more patient, persevering and accepting of pain we know. We found that out on 9/11, and we may be about to find it out again. But Americans are practical. They all know how to do a cost-benefit analysis. They will be patient, persevering and willing to absorb pain as long as they feel they can win and are winning. They will accept bodybags as part of the price of victory, but not for a second will they accept them if they start to see evidence of defeat.

Приложение 4

Race for order in Iraq

Christian Science Monitor, 24.04.2003

By Seth Stern/ Staff writer of the Christian Science Monitor

As an attorney in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Moniem al-Khatib says he practiced law in a lawless land subject to a dictator's whim. He arrived in court each day unsure what new decree Mr. Hussein might announce. He saw powerless citizens falsely condemned, he says, while ruling Baath Party bosses drove through stoplights or tortured enemies at will.

This month, Mr. Khatib watched on television from exile in London as Hussein's regime collapsed and looters stripped Baghdad of everything from bathroom fixtures to the animals at the city zoo.

Out of these tatters, exiles such as Khatib, jurists who stayed behind, and their new American occupiers face the daunting task of rebuilding the rule of law in Iraq.

They must restore judicial independence and citizens' confidence, cleanse the Iraqi legal code of Hussein's egregious decrees, and prosecute former leaders who committed crimes against their people.

But most crucial of all is the need to move rapidly: other nation-building experiences have shown it may be only weeks before Iraqis lose faith in a new government that can't maintain order and fairly punish those who commit crimes.

Slow progress in Haiti and Kosovo taught nation-builders the vital role the rule of law plays in reestablishing stability. "Without that there is no conducive environment for reconstruction", says Jamal Benomar, a UN official who has helped rebuild legal systems around the world.

In Iraq, at last, jurists won't have to start from scratch. The country has no shortage of good laws on the books, with a strong legal tradition dating back to Hammurabi's ancient code of justice - one of the earliest known bodies of law.

Приложение 5

Blair's marathon all but over, and in record time

The Times, 15.04.2003 By Ben Macintyre

Tony Blair staggered the last stretch of his war marathon yesterday, a man now running on pure willpower, gaunt, gritted, visibly elated, and profoundly, knee-saggingly knackered.

"The conflict is not yet over", he panted, in the first statement he has made since the fall of Baghdad. "There is still a distance to go ... but we are near the end, the challenge of the peace is now beginning.

With the finishing line in sight, Mr. Blair dug deep for those reserves of prime ministerial energy, and declared the race all but over, in record time. In

less than four weeks, the regime of Saddam Hussein is gone and the vast majority of Iraqis are rejoicing. All over Iraq, Saddam's forces have collapsed.

His jaw set, Blair pounded on, occasionally reaching inside his jacket, as if massaging a stitch.

Hands reached out from all sides to slap his back as he reached the end. Duncan Smith was the first. He has carried a heavy burden, but he will have been comforted by the conviction that he was doing the right thing.

IDS, too, looked tired, as did Charles Kennedy who seemed dangerously hot. With bright pink face and orange hair over a sludgy green tie, the leader of Liberal Democrats looked like a sunset over a sewage farm.

There is nothing more exhausting than standing on the sidelines watching someone else run a marathon. But while most cheered him, some stuck out feet in the hope of tripping him up in mid-victory lap. Tarn Dalyell demanded reassurance that the Prime Minister was not racing on to Syria. (A few weeks ago Tarn was predicting utter catastrophe in Baghdad; now, in a blinding flash of inspiration, he has decided that Damascus is going up in flames instead. This is called a Damascene Conversation.) "There are no plans to invade Syria", said Mr. Blair. V / It was p ointed о ut that this Government once h ad "no plans" to dо ther things that got planned pretty quickly, like raising taxes; but Blair slogged on doggedly, one foot in front of the other. "We have absolutely no plans, whatever, to invade Syria".

The injured Paula Radcliffe, it is said, went on to win the London Marathon thanks to a mysterious Australian Aborigine elixir made with oil from the belly of an emu. Blair's defenders and detractors were both equally keen to douse him in different sorts of oil.

Dame Patrick Cormack, of the Tories, was particularly oleaginous, gushing admiration for the Prime Minister as he has throughout the war. If Sir Patrick were in Iraq, he would need to be capped to prevent him being sabotaged.

Labour's Alice Mahon, on the other hand, said that Britain and America had "invaded Iraq to get the oil", and then sat down, squawking and flapping like an enraged emu deprived of its stomach unction.

Blair waved a dismissive hand. "There is nothing I can say that will eliminate the conspiracy theories". But he declined to gloat, perhaps knowing that wrapping yourself in the mantle of victory too early is a sure recipe for jogger's nipple, the affliction developed by Alastair Campbell during his sterling performance in Sunday's marathon, leaving the poor man almost unable to beat his chest.

Through the finishing stretch, Blair seemed strangely disconnected, as if focused somewhere far away, locked in the loneliness of the long-distance runner. But when it was over, he wiped his forehead with a grin of pure satisfaction. I have never seen a Prime Minister more in need of a nice cool pint of emu-belly oil.

Приложение 6

Поговорим о веревке в доме повешенного

Известия, 11.04.2003.

Коалиция в битве за Багдад одержала логичную, но при этом довольно странную победу. Это все заметили. Она оставила впечатление договорной. Бились-бились, не на жизнь, а на смерть, а может, делали вид, что бились, и вдруг элитные дивизии товарища Саддама куда-то испарились. Или словно провалились. Бронетехника с вальяжными танкистами неторопливо въехала на центральную площадь. Шоу, которое начиналось по одному сценарию, закончилось по-другому.

Поначалу и со стороны казалось, что нам покажут поединок Давида и Голиафа. И всё вроде к этому шло: здоровяк филистимлянин Голиаф в бронежилете, на бронетехнике, с томагавком в одной руке, с «умной» бомбой в другой, каска на голове, прибор ночного видения в ранце, рация сбоку, нашёл себе соперника - пастушонка Давида в гимнастёрке на голое тело с пращей и «Калашниковым». Ну и, конечно, забил его, запугал, застращал.

Героическая легенда, стало быть, на сей раз не задалась. Ко всему прочему режим Саддама оказался не только тираническим, но и продажным.

Случилось, как в театре, когда на замену одному спектаклю зрителям предлагается посмотреть другой. Артисты те же, но роли -- разные. Ну и сюжет иначе разворачивается. Голиаф -- уже не хвастливый и самонадеянный громила Голиаф, а человеколюбивый и культурный рыцарь Ланцелот. Он пришёл в долины Тигра и Евфрата дать потомкам древнейшей цивилизации волю. С другой стороны, и Давид - не Давид, а всего лишь жестокий многоголовый Дракон. И то, что мы увидели на своих голубых экранах, это бой рыцаря с ящером за освобождение от его ига порабощенных граждан.

Эта сказка нам особенно близка и понятна. Впрочем, нам обе сказки близки и понятны. Мы все или почти все роли переиграли: и Давида, и Голиафа, и термоядерным Драконом себя сознавали, и под Драконом живали.

И даже в образе Ланцелота однажды себя обнаружили. Это когда в 91-м вышли на бой с путчистами.

Другое дело, что шварцевский «Дракон» - очень печальная сказка. А в исполнении иракских и американских актёров оказалась предельно гротескной.

[-] А телевидение снова и снова крутит набившую оскомину хронику.

Сначала ликование по случаю победы демократии (кадры сокрушения памятника, которые все телерепортёры назвали историческими) и через запятую - грабежи, воровство, поджоги, линчевание... И это исторические кадры. И легко догадаться, насколько исторична их внутренняя взаимообусловленность.

Потом их будут разводить в пространстве и во времени, разнимать, разрывать. Из них будут монтировать клипы для надобности предвыборных кампаний как в Америке и Англии, так и в свободном Ираке. Но это одно кино. Притом трагифарсовое.

Приложение 7

Буря в эфире

«Известия», 24.02.2003 Даниил Африн

Один из исследователей информационных войн разделил их на три «шахматные» стадии. Во время «дебюта», еще до фазы открытых вооруженных столкновений, складываются и укрепляются образы «мы» и «они», акцентируется внимание на идеологических символах, оправдывающих прямое воздействие. На этой стадии часто пропагандируется возможность мирного решения проблемы, в реальности неприемлемая для обеих сторон, чтобы привлечь на свою сторону общественное мнение.

[...]

Когда конфликт переходит в открытую фазу, начинается «миттельшпиль», меняющий формы информационных войн: задачи этой фазы - уличить противника в морально неприемлемых формах ведения конфликта, а также привлечь на свою сторону новых союзников.

Наконец, в ходе «эндшпиля» реальный конфликт завершается, а информационная война переходит в новую фазу - выгодных сторонам трактовок случившегося.

Размещено на Allbest.ru