A War By Any Other Name?
Apparently the "global war on terror" is no more. Instead, the Bush administration tells us that we are now fighting a "global struggle against violent extremism."
Huh? I realize that these sorts of changes in nomenclature happen all of the time, but I just don't understand this one. I mean, if the goal was to indicate our steely resolve, surely the move from "war" to "struggle" is backpedaling. And I could understand it if the administration wanted to define the war/struggle more clearly and thus try to avoid embarrassing situations such as that time the Prez admitted that we would never win a war on terror. But to me, an enemy of "violent extremists" is even more vague and nebulous than the "terrorists" moniker was. This is not a step toward clarity and precision.
So is this just a bizarre and ill-conceived marketing ploy? An attempt to broaden the list of American enemies beyond the traditional terrorist pool? Regardless, I just don't see the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of this world giving up on their precious "war on terror" quite this easily.
Huh? I realize that these sorts of changes in nomenclature happen all of the time, but I just don't understand this one. I mean, if the goal was to indicate our steely resolve, surely the move from "war" to "struggle" is backpedaling. And I could understand it if the administration wanted to define the war/struggle more clearly and thus try to avoid embarrassing situations such as that time the Prez admitted that we would never win a war on terror. But to me, an enemy of "violent extremists" is even more vague and nebulous than the "terrorists" moniker was. This is not a step toward clarity and precision.
So is this just a bizarre and ill-conceived marketing ploy? An attempt to broaden the list of American enemies beyond the traditional terrorist pool? Regardless, I just don't see the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O'Reillys of this world giving up on their precious "war on terror" quite this easily.
posted by OleNelson at 12:32 PM
3 Comments:
Does this mean they're going to struggle against people who bomb abortion clinics and beat up gay people and burn crosses in people's yards? And people who start wars based on false information and deliberate manipulation of the public because they have an extreme desire for revenge?
Probably not. I'm guessing they see it as a way to justify the war in Iraq - "See? Saddam is a violent extremist! So it doesn't matter that he had no connection to al Qaeda or 9/11 or WMDs!" And 'struggle' connotes a long-term deal, rather than a 'war' that much of the country would like to get wrapped up ASAP.
I like Slate's explanation - that G-SAVE is a better acronym than G-WOT.
actually, according to an article in the new yorker it says that by changing nomenclature "the administration is admitting that its strategy since 9/11 has failed, without really admitting it."
the magazine speculates that it's a kind of muted exit strategy from the "war", shifting the focus from a tactic (which has failed, failed failed) to an ideology.
Post a Comment
<< Home