Michael Totten had a good post on the subject.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.