At Least It's Not Another War on a Common Noun

From a New York Times article today:

The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Of all the things that those in charge could possibly "retool" to improve this situation, they went for the slogan. At first glance, that might seem like one of the more trivial moves they could make. After all, if they're retooling something, why not retool a Hummer factory to start cranking out armor-plated vehicles to protect our soldiers from the ravages of roadside bombs in Iraq instead of cranking out oversized SUVs to protect soccer moms from the ravages of my Toyota in the grocery store parking lot? Certainly that would make someone more safe than simply changing lexicon. But lest we forget, these are cunning people, or as Obi-Wan Kenobi said "He's a politician. They're not to be trusted." They wouldn't do this without reason.

At first glance "global struggle against violent extremism" has the decided disadvantage of being less catchy than "global war on terror" and is a little long for a news channel graphics package or photo op backdrop, which makes the choice all the more baffling on the surface. "Global struggle against violent extremism" doesn't strike the necessary chord of fear in our hearts, and it doesn't trip off the tongue as well as "War on Terror." Actually, that last part is only true as long as Rumsfeld and Co. keep using the full phrase. "Uniting and supporting America by providing appropriate tools required to intercept and obstruct terrorism" is quite a mouthful, too, until you shorten it to "USA PATRIOT [Act]." As Slate noted here, the retooling changes G-WOT (which is pronounced suspiciously like "Gee, What?") to G-SAVE. That gives us a touchy-feely, heroic acronym instead of one that makes us sound like clueless dolts. Logic point 1 to the retoolers.

Logic Point 2: By commandeering the lexicon, they've taken the wind from the sails of the opposition. More and more lately, we've heard variations on "they're fighting a war, but no one is asking us to sacrifice on the home front." Well, if it's no longer a war, they've got no reason to ask us to do anything uncomfortable like conserving energy or considering whether we have the military capability to do this at all. I believe a similar strategy was employed in the Korean It-Wasn't-Really-A-War. The switch also effectively pre-empts any uncomfortable conversations we may need to have about reinstituting a draft. Again, no war, ergo no draft.

Logic Point 3 is closely tied to Point 2. A war is something to be waged. Wars are between countries, or at least defined groups. Most important, though, a global war requires alliances, and diplomacy is not one of this administration's strong points. The World Wars may have been global in scope, but there were still only two sides to choose from. Certainly, this led to more than a few "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" alliances, but that's just how global war works. Struggles are a different matter entirely. In a struggle, the shared effort against a common enemy is implied. There's no need to formally have a treaty or a pact. Reasonably compatible goals are enough. Can't keep a coalition together? Make formal coalition partnerships irrelevant.

I'll reserve judgment on how Logic Point 4 is going to play out, or if anyone even decides to go there. If we're no longer fighting the Global War On Terror, we don't need to adhere to the pesky rules of war. The Geneva Conventions only apply to wars, not global struggles, ridding the administration of any of those irritating questions on whether and when to apply the Geneva Conventions and to defend the decision not to. However, and this is the part that becomes nebulous, the War On Terror has been invoked to justify actions we might not have undertaken or condoned outside of a state of war. Without a War on Terror, can we still justify actions like open-ended detentions of Enemy Combatants? I'm sure they'll find a way. Many of the powers of a War President spring organically from the state of war, and if we're no longer to be kept in a state of war, we may not be as willing to accept parts of the administrative agenda.