Wednesday, July 27, 2005

End of "war", beginning of "struggle against violent extremism"

The New York Times (via Daily Doubter, via Slate) has a piece on the Bush circus's latest attempt to win the war against terror by, well, just calling it something else.

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.

So now all we have to do is invent a time machine, go back and push this idea before we actually invade Iraq.

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 catch phrase of choice.

So our next move should be to inform those pesky terrorists of our change of catchphrase and that should make them stop killing us in the name of a holy war. 'Cause, you know, we are not fighting a war anymore. That would make it cheating. And cheaters go to hell.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

Look look, isn't that a war? It's got people in uniform fighting n stuff. Nope my mistake, it's just a global struggle against violent extremism.
Well General, if you already knew it was a mistake, why are you then coming forward with your opinion only now? Is it because the Bush cabal WANTED to call it a War against Terror just long enough so that the American public would mentally equate the war in Iraq with the "War against Terror"? God that was a brilliant psychological move.

The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

Barn door. Horse. Fled.

The revamped campaign reflects the evolution in Mr. Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

I thought the dude didn't believe in evolution. So has his thinking evolved to a near-human state now? Anyways, welcome to Earth Mr. President. Tell me, are Martian women really three-boobed?

The shifting language is one of the most public changes in the administration's strategy to battle Al Qaeda and its affiliates.

Words : America's best friends in the war against terror. Unless, of course, they are "crusade", "prison abuse", "torture", "civilian casualties", in which case, they are America's worst enemies.

Lawrence Di Rita, Mr. Rumsfeld's spokesman, said the shift in language "is not a shift in thinking, but a continuation of the immediate post-9/11 approach."

Sure, we are still sailing down the same river, just facing the correct direction now. See? There's really no difference.

"The key to "ultimately winning the war," said Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, "is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."

Aww, that sounds suspiciously like offering therapy and understanding to the terrorists. Damn treasonous liberals. Wait, who was it who said that again?


Veena said...

Well, the war against abstract nouns continues!

I posted abt the same topic sometime ago. If you get the chance, check out:

Hume's Ghost said...
The BBC is saying US officials have been calling it "a global struggle against the enemies of freedom"

Which is nice, I suppose, since it drops the overt reference to the nastiness of war but can still be used to rally jingoistic support for military aggresion.