The administration has changed its terminology after some three and a half years. It is no longer referring to the Global War on Terror, and is instead using the term `Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism.' Another
current diary has links to some of the media reports on the change.
There are really two shifts in this: from War to Struggle, and from Terror to Violent Extremism.
What is the purpose of this change? Some observations below the fold, but no conclusions: this shift leaves me puzzled.
The word
War brings with it all sorts of assumptions:
- Wars have defined outcomes (wars end)
- Wars have clear opponents
- Wars are waged by the military
- Wars are extremely expensive
- Wars are waged according to a set of rules
- The U.S. expects to win wars, and loses face if it does not
The word
Struggle brings its own, different assumptions:
- Struggles seldom have clear outcomes, and seldom end. We struggle with our weight, or the monthly bills, or to control our tempers
- Struggles seldom have clear opponents. In common usage, a `struggle' usually includes wrestling with our own tendencies
- Struggles are waged by anyone and every one, not just designated forces
- The word struggle doesn't imply any particular level of expense
- Struggles are not waged according to a set of rules, and often not with a pre-defined strategy. Struggles are typically reactive, with tactics changing on-the-fly.
- We don't expect to `win' struggles--we expect to continue struggling throughout our lives
So, why does the Administration want us to think of the current situation as a struggle rather than a war? Is it preparing us for a continual twilight of skirmishes in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere? Is it trying to avoid being measured on outcomes, such as the capture of bin Laden? Is it signaling a shift away from military responses: i.e., does this make an attack on Iran less likely? Does the
stuggle meme work better at building support for attacks on domestic civil liberties?
Note that the U.S. used The Cold War term for generations, helping form a mindset that supported high military budgets and identified specific countries as enemies. The Cold Struggle would have had a much different feel to it.
The word Terror brings its own assumptions:
- Terror attacks are unstoppable. Countries that have been plagued by terrorism for years have sometimes reduced the frequency of attacks, but have not eliminated them.
- Terrorists cannot be bargained or reasoned with--they must be killed (not actually true: groups that used terrorist tactics in Ireland, South Africa, and Palestine have moved into the political mainstream. But sound bites like, "We will never negotiate with terrorists" proliferate.)
- Terrorists are generally stateless. The clients of "state-sponsored terrorism" are usually groups with multiple bases in different countries and members of different nationalities.
- The premier terrorist organization is al Qaeda. We cannot claim a win against terror without crippling al Qaeda.
The term `Violent Extremism' (VE) is new to me (and it sure looks like it was picked in order to have a cute acronym: GSAVE was simply SAVE in the first reports.) The way it resonates with me is:
- Violent Extremism seems more containable than terrorism, simply because it doesn't have a history of failed containment tied to it.
- Groups that adopt tactics of Violent Extremism are not necessarily beyond reason. We might negotiate with them.
- Violent Extremism is much broader than terrorism. Terrorism is aimed at civilians; VE could include attacks on soldiers. The construction of nuclear or biological weapons might be considered VE.
- Al Qaeda does not currently `own the VE brand.' We could claim various victories over VE, without making progress against al Qaeda.
So: why the change? Is it simply that the Administration has concluded: "By any accepted metric for wars, we are losing, and we don't see any path to victory. Change the name." Or is there something more subtle underway?