The War on Terror appears to be over — at least rhetorically.
The Washington Post is reporting that the Obama
administration has directed its officials and representatives to
begin replacing the term “Global War on Terror” with the more
anodyne “Overseas Contingency Operation” in their speeches and
public pronouncements.
The move is not entirely unexpected. As the Post points out, the
term has been used by the new administration “in a war context”
for several weeks now, almost since it first took office at the
end of January. But what does the change mean, on a practical
level?
Here, it’s useful to remember that even the Bush administration
had doubts about the phrase, despite having coined it. “We
actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle
against ideological extremists who do not believe in free
societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake
the conscience of the free world,”
President Bush himself said back in 2004. Back then, Bush was
responding to critics who said the GWOT was a misnomer, since
“terrorism” is simply a tactic used by radicals to advance their
agendas. But, at the end of the day, his administration knew full
well that, whatever the official name, we were engaged in a
long-term struggle against the forces of radical Islamic
extremism.
So, I suspect, does this one. A great many dedicated public
servants in the U.S. government, to say nothing of our armed
forces, remain committed to the “long war,” irrespective of what
it happens to be called these days. Of much greater concern,
however, is that our allies, and our adversaries, may conclude
that the change is not simply semantic — or benign. Rather, if
the perception is that Washington has “gone wobbly” in the fight
against radical Islam, the U.S. may soon face a reinvigorated
challenge from a range of hostile actors, and a dwindling field
of strategic partners to help it fight that threat.
If that turns out to be the case, we are liable to find out just
how expensive semantics can be.
Pingback| 3.26.09 @ 11:40AM
What’s In A Name? — But As For Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.26.09 @ 1:37PM
Topics about Actors » Archive » The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : What's In A Nam links to this page. Here’s an excerpt: