« Good on ya | Main | Possible solution »
July 28, 2005
Rhetorical shift
There's been a lot of reporting recently on the Bush administration's recent shift from referring to a "global war on terror" to a more amorphous "global struggle against violent extremism." There's good reason to be skeptical of this shift; it could be politically easier for the administration, or it could be a subtle attempt to shift blame for failures in Iraq, or it could be a way to define the conflict more broadly.
Putting all that aside, I have to give credit where credit is due -- and it's due here. First off, referring so explicitly to a "war" was a very dangerous thing to do, especially when such a "war" had, by definition, no clear benchmarks for victory or defeat. Perpetual war, for very good reason, has been the fear of civil libertarians for generations. Second, it's tough to wage war on an adjective, or an emotion, or for that matter something that possesses no clear definition. In short, the phrase "global war on terror" was flawed on nearly every count, and beyond that, it was quite possibly dangerous. It was only a tad better than Bush's original, rash construction of a "crusade against evil-doers."
This new title -- "global struggle against violent extremism" -- is a clear improvement. For one thing, the word "struggle" instinctively encompasses a much wider, more diffuse conflict, one in which the military represents but one component. And "violent extremism," while admittedly not much more concrete than "terror," at least portrays the foe in a much more accurate light. It's tough to be for "violence," and "extremism" implies that the converse -- mainstream, peaceful Islam -- is the norm. This new term might not roll off the tongue like the old one, but it's a clear improvement nonetheless.
Many will argue, rightly, that talk is cheap: the real test will be whether the new terminology is met with new policies. But in diplomacy, style very often is substance. Simply dropping the word "war" will go a long way in making the case that the United States really doesn't want to subjugate the Muslim world, and "violent extremism" is an altogether more accurate term than "terror." It won't happen overnight, and it likely won't affect the views of those who know the political machinations behind such a rhetorical shift (rumor has it that it was a Karen Hughes original), but the change in language could very possibly have a pervasive effect on friend and foe alike. It implies in more realistic terms the challenge that faces the United States, and it more clearly suggests the desired objectives in meeting such a challenge. Over time, this shift in rhetoric could produce a shift in tone and in the very parameters of the terrorism debate. This, I think, is much required and would be altogether healthier for society.
While I'd very much like to see this rhetorical shift further matched by a policy one, don't dismiss it quite yet as mere politics. At least initially, I have to agree with the administration on this one.
Posted by Daniel Widome at 08:49 PM to U. S. Politics
