argexpat
Active member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2004
- Messages
- 460
- Reaction score
- 8
- Location
- I was there, now I'm here
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Now the Bush administration has decided that "war on terror" is no longer an apt slogan, and has officially changed it to "global struggle against violent extremism," claiming that the new slogan rightly recognizes the political ramifications of fighting terrorism, as opposed to just the military ones. In other words, dropping smart bombs and violently overthrowing enemy regimes is not enough (or maybe too much); there must be a political component to successfully fight terrorism. Which means diplomacy, something Bush's tough-talking-sheriff act wouldn't allow.
But kudos to Bush for finally figuring this out four years after September 11 (and never mind that liberals have been arguing this ever since). And it's too bad Bush couldn't acknowledge this during the campaign, when instead Kerry was pilloried for essentially saying the same thing. (Remember Kerry's infamous "global test"?) Imagine if Kerry had suggested changing the slogan from "war" to "struggle"?
So the War on Terror is now the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. What strikes me first about this retooled slogan is the word "struggle," which echoes the terrorists call of jihad, which in Arabic means (gasp!) "struggle." So we're in a jihad against violent extremism. Couldn't the insurgents in Iraq make the same claim? Violently overthrowing the government of Iraq in order to (according to the new rational) spread democracy and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process is violent extremism by any measure. Arguably for a good cause (if you believe the hype), but violent and extreme nonetheless.
But if Bush had been able, or willing, to be honest and realistic about terrorism and how best to combat it, instead of resorting to partisan demagoguery and naked exploitation of 9/11 for political gain, we may have made some real progress toward combating it. Instead, it's the terrorists who are winning their jihad.
But kudos to Bush for finally figuring this out four years after September 11 (and never mind that liberals have been arguing this ever since). And it's too bad Bush couldn't acknowledge this during the campaign, when instead Kerry was pilloried for essentially saying the same thing. (Remember Kerry's infamous "global test"?) Imagine if Kerry had suggested changing the slogan from "war" to "struggle"?
So the War on Terror is now the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. What strikes me first about this retooled slogan is the word "struggle," which echoes the terrorists call of jihad, which in Arabic means (gasp!) "struggle." So we're in a jihad against violent extremism. Couldn't the insurgents in Iraq make the same claim? Violently overthrowing the government of Iraq in order to (according to the new rational) spread democracy and killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians in the process is violent extremism by any measure. Arguably for a good cause (if you believe the hype), but violent and extreme nonetheless.
But if Bush had been able, or willing, to be honest and realistic about terrorism and how best to combat it, instead of resorting to partisan demagoguery and naked exploitation of 9/11 for political gain, we may have made some real progress toward combating it. Instead, it's the terrorists who are winning their jihad.
Last edited: