Naming an enemy frames the scope of the war

Evidence

From the moment the enemy appears-the enemy vanishes. The enemy is determined by distance, and distance, like the desert, grows. “If only I could sometimes sit far away,” writes Nietzche, “if not as far as my enemy.” The enemy withdraws, goes into hiding, and evades interrogation, surrendering at most to a confused multiplication oflabels. — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 376 (#complicates, via linked claim)

As I have already indicated, the question of the enemy must be addressed as distinct from the question of war. That, however, is of course not to say that the latter is irrelevant for an understanding of the former. In this context, it may therefore be important to note that commenting on Clausewitz, Andre Glucksmann describes war as a “work of intelligence” (Glucksmann, Discours de laguerre, 29). — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 1002 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Naming the specific enemy country sharply boosts public support for war — Albert Bandura, Moral Disengagement: How People Do Harm…, 2297; The enemy eludes stable identification the moment it is named — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 376; Asking who the enemy is already constitutes an act of war — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab: A History of the…, 999 (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• The enemy eludes stable identification the moment it is named #complicates (0.80) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 376
• The enemy question must be separated analytically from the question of war #complicates (0.78) — Gil Anidjar, The Jew, the Arab, 1002