Sometimes the story, and the snark, just write themselves. The Bush administration's New Coke is a change in its
marketing slogan from "global war on terror" to "global struggle against violent extremism." The NY Times reports:
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.
Slate's Fred Kaplan asks the question, are these guys really this clueless? See below for answers.
The NYT story continues:
Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Mr. Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.
In a surprise move, sure to throw the White House Press Corpse off the scent, Beltway Scotty McClellan was not chosen to announce the Bush administration's discovery of this revolutionary semantic tool, the revised acronmym for an updated marketing campaign. Fred Kaplan responds for me:
It took four years for the president of the United States to realize that fighting terrorism has a political component? It took six months for his senior advisers to retool a slogan? We are witnessing that rare occasion when the phrase "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" can be uttered without lapsing into cliché.
But the shallowness gets deeper still. The Times story doesn't notice what appears to be the driving force behind the new slogan--a desire for a happier acronym.
Look at the first letters of Global War on Terrorism. GWOT. What does that mean; how is it pronounced? Gwot? Too frivolously rowdy, like a fight scene in a Marvel comic book (Bam! Pfooff! Gwot!). Gee-wot? Sounds like a garbled question (Gee what?).
Then look at Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Its acronym is GSAVE--i.e., gee-save. We're out to save the world, see, not wage war on it. Or, as national security adviser Stephen Hadley puts it in the Times piece, "We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative."
Wow, without that positive alternative marketing slogan, where would we be in Iraq? Oh yeah, that's right: mired.
The NYT also notes, "The shifting language is one of the most public changes in the administration's strategy to battle Al Qaeda and its affiliates..." Brilliantly spotted, NYT! Of all the many strategies Bush could pursue - and capturing Osama bin Laden does not seem to be among them - the most publicly visible change is the catchphrase of the marketing campaign! Surely the hearts and minds of all good consumers will follow.
How pathetic that this type of meaningless word-game is Bush's answer to the increasingly dire problems his advisors' policies have created. We have a hollow, over-extended military that is no longer a credible threat against truly dangerous countries that really do have WMD. Under Bush, this country is less secure, as a generation of new terrorists are being encouraged by his policies faster than we can destroy them. As the NYT speculates on the Bush admin's motives for the change:
New opinion polls show that the American public is increasingly pessimistic about the mission in Iraq, with many doubting its link to the counterterrorism mission. So, a new emphasis on reminding the public of the broader, long-term threat to the United States may allow the administration to put into broader perspective the daily mayhem in Iraq and the American casualties.
About that broader perspective: It's all marketing, marketing, marketing. Note that these shadowy motives ascribed to the administration are primarily about marketing its policies for domestic political consumption, not about making corrective changes to obviously failed policies. Regards to Barbara Tuchman, and welcome to the march of folly as Bush doggedly pursues his counterproductive policies in the face of well-known, feasible alternatives.
Without the positive alternative of a new marketing campaign, how is a puzzled consumer, er, voter, supposed to recognize the difference between Bush's product and the nefarious Brand X? You tell me. And don't forget to Live Richly (tm)!
Cross-posted at My Left Wing.