It’s Official: “War On Terror” Name Stays
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, General Politics, The War On TerrorismI applauded the Administration for trying to change the terminology in an early post about the War On Terror, but the President doesn’t want it that way. I realize this may seem like a small deal to a lot of people, but in this specific case I really thinks the semantics of the situation matter. Declaring war on a tactic doesn’t not help our cause, and especially when it seems like many within the administration want to change it.
And given recent comments in the media about the religion of Islam being a terrorist organization, I can’t help but think that this War On Terror is continually seen by people in the Middle East (and around the world, for that matter) as a thinly veiled way to say a War On Islam.
In any event, from the NY Times comes more on the War On Terror:
GRAPEVINE, Tex., Aug. 3 – President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, “Make no mistake about it, we are at war.”In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase “war on terror” no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the “global struggle against violent extremism,” the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.
In recent public appearances, Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers have avoided formulations using the word “war,” and some of Mr. Bush’s top advisers have suggested that the administration wanted to jettison what had been its semiofficial wording of choice, “the global war on terror.”
In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush’s national security adviser, said that the conflict was “more than just a military war on terror” and that the United States needed to counter “the gloomy vision” of the extremists and “offer a positive alternative.”
So why did this happen?
In introducing the new language, administration officials had suggested that the change reflected an evolution in the president’s thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks and had been adopted after discussions among Mr. Bush’s senior advisers that began in January.The new slogan quickly become grist for late-night comics and drew news coverage that linked it with the emergence of a broad new approach to defining and attacking the problem of Islamic extremism through diplomacy and efforts to build closer ties to moderate Muslims, as well as through military action.
Again, I think this is an important issue, and so did the Administration.
What do you think?
UPDATE: 6:27 p.m.
The Moderate Voice has another opinion:
When you see the phrase “Pre Owned Cars” you know what they really are. But there’s a reason why advertisers and car dealerships use that instead of the phrase “used cars.” Ditto with the war on terror (war on violent extremism), creationism (intelligent design), liberal (progressive), constitutional option (to hide phrase REPUBLICANS originally used to journalists “nuclear option”) etc. Why not use the original phrases and stand by them? They are all valid and defensible?
This entry was posted on Thursday, August 4th, 2005 and is filed under Foreign Policy, General Politics, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
August 4th, 2005 at 10:28 am
Changing the terminology was also somewhat of a vindication of John Kerry’s campaign statements about the conflict.
I agree that the language is important. Both the words ‘war’ and ‘terror’ carry a lot of weight, and the phrase is used to trigger an emotional response in the ‘public mind.’
I prefer “global struggle against violent extremism,” as a more accurate characterization and less emotionally charged. We need to keep a cool head to deal with this problem successfully.
August 4th, 2005 at 11:40 am
Gut response: this is *so* not news. Well, unless one considers the administration in-fighting/confusion angle that the press is transparently trying to magnify (i.e., “President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers”).
This just goes to show that conservatives generally stink at “politically correct” newspeak, and should never give in to the temptation. ;-)
BTW, I don’t recall anyone parsing stuff like this regarding the “War on Poverty” or the “War on Drugs”. And those were hardly wars – certainly not in the sense of defending yourself from someone who wants to blow you and your family into little pieces simply because you won’t submit to dhimmitude.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:01 pm
From what I gather, the main reason for Rumsfeld’s new characterization of the conflict as a “global struggle” had nothing to do with the conflict’s non-military aspects. Rather, it was because the conflict is beginning to look a lot like another Cold War – a long-term, ideologically driven global conflict that our great-grandchildren may still be fighting – meaning that if it is a war, then the nation needs to be on a more or less permanent war footing, and the Bush administration is concerned (maybe a bit too cynically) that the American people aren’t ready to accept that idea.
August 4th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Yes, ‘war’ and ‘terror’ are emotionally charged terms, but I do not find that a reason to not use them! If we are talking about something that ends the lives of thousands of people and causes great turmoil, perhaps it is accurate to use powerful words?
Besides the two examples already mentioned about using ‘war’ (poverty, drugs), lets throw in ‘the moral equivalent of war’, used to describe the energy crisis in the 70’s. Problem with that term (’moral equivalent’) is that it really did fail to arouse the public, about an issue that was important then, and is of increasing relevance today.
So, there probably is no short phrase of catchy terms that can adequately address everything that is happening today, regarding all the complexities of modern terrorism and the US response to it.
An encyclopedic definition of war would include the concepts killing people and destroying things. As that is currently happening all around us, it seems to me ‘war’ is perfectly reasonable way to describe it.
And of ‘terror’? Yes, no doubt you can describe it as only a tactic and not a personified enemy, but it also has the advantage of being (1) accurate, and (2) probably the most neutral of the choices available. What else would you like to use? ‘Violant Islam?’ That might also be accurate, but boy, that sure would stir the pot a bit, wouldn’t it?
For better or worse, leave it as GWOT. I for one can’t come up with a workable alternative.
Dan
August 4th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
From my comment, it’s obvious that I disagree that terror is a neutral term. In fact, I believe it’s the most political charged term he could have used. And of course we wouldn’t call it violent Islam. Come on.
The terminology that they were thinking about adopting was wise because we certainly aren’t going after groups like the IRA and such. Also, this “war” is going to go on a LONG time and we need to recognize that. Is anybody really ready for us to be at war for 50, 60, 70 years? Of course not, and eventually the War On Terror will become a joke, as it already has. We need to pick better terminology so people will start to understand how this is going to be a continual struggle against violent extremism. That’s all I’m saying and I feel it’s a strong enough topic to blog about.
August 5th, 2005 at 12:00 am
All of this politically correct nonsense is making me sick. Let’s call it what it is; a war against Islamism. No, it is not a war against Islam, but against a totalitarian ideology based on Islam. There is a difference, and if Bush was more articulate, maybe people would understand that. (Or maybe I’m being a little too rational).
Michael Totten had a good post on the subject.