Cold War II Struggle Officially Begins

From Rumsfeld's own mouth, we are no longer fighting a "War on Terror."

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 [jihad? -- ed] is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, according to senior administration and military officials.

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top 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.

This is horrible! And I see that I'm not the only one who noticed that we have ceased waging war in favor of a term our enemy favors, jihad! Yesterday, I'd heard of a possible change in terminology via TIA Daily, and was of the same mind as Robert Tracinski:

I have mixed feelings about the phrase "War on Terrorism." On the one hand, "terrorism" names a tactic distinctive to our current enemy that reflects the Islamists' basic political goals: the use of mass murder to terrorism unbelievers. On the other hand, it tends to focus our attention on the specific groups who employ the tactic of terrorism, not on the governments and ideological movements that support them.

Here is a sign that some of that confusion is being cleared up: a Pentagon report that no longer name "terrorism" as the target in this war, naming "Islamist extremism" instead--a term that has its own problems but at least identifies the enemy in terms of his ideas. But it does not seem to focus on the role of states who sponsor terrorism: Iran and Syria.

This would have been okay, but in the earlier statement our government -- incredidibly -- has opted to continue making human sacrifices to the insatiable god of multiculturalism: Islamofascism is not even mentioned!

Throughout the article, pronouncements like the following are made:

Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President George W. Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

...


"It is more than just a military war on terror," Steven Hadley, the national security adviser, said in a telephone interview. "It's broader than that. It's a global struggle against extremism. We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative."

Evolution? What was the "Forward Strategy of Freedom", then? And since when have wars not included extramilitary efforts by governments? What is this all about? Why are semantics suddenly so important for our side when the other side traffics in deadly explosives?

General Richard 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."

The last time our nation faced a long, protracted struggle, the use of the term "Cold War" did not, as I recall, leave anyone under the impression that paratroopers were being sent to Moscow. So why are we suddenly so fastidious in our use of that three-letter word?

Ayn Rand once said something like, "Don't bother to examine a folly, ask yourself only what it accomplishes." Our leaders are plainly interested in discussing everything but the use of military force and they are keen that the public not think we are in a war. Might it be that our government wishes to not be held accountable for failing to respond appropriately -- by the use of military force -- during the war we find ourselves in, whether we choose to call it that or not?

If this all sounds like a heaping helping of appeasement from Bush, the only possible silver lining is restated at the end.

Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said in an interview that if America's efforts were limited to "protecting the homeland and attacking and disrupting terrorist networks, you're on a treadmill that is likely to get faster and faster with time." The key to "ultimately winning the war," he said, "is addressing the ideological part of the war [emphasis added] that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists."

This is good, but for the missing word: Islam.

Two words. Eight letters. You'd think each had four by their apparent bowdlerization, but if we can't even say "war" and "Islam," how are we to wage the first and defeat the second?

The article in U S News and World Report is a little more encouraging, but my confidence falters when the men in charge sound more like they're trying to pull a fast one than building upon past success. At best, it sounds like the present administration may in fact stay the course or even improve upon their earlier strategy. However, if this is true, their reluctance to just say so bodes ill for the continuation of this policy beyond the end of Bush's term since it may be absent from the public forum by then. If a lame duck seems so afraid to speak of a policy, who, needing votes, is going to pick it up? Perhaps I'm overreacting, but this really bothers me.

-- CAV

Note: Or not!

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Mr. Bush said in his address here, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

Mr. Bush made a nod to the criticism that "war on terror" was a misleading phrase in the sense that the enemy is not terrorism, but those who used it to achieve their goals. In doing so, he used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech, most of which was about domestic policy.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives," he said.

Good. The more I thought about this, the more dismayed I became. You can win a war. But some struggles never end. Americans play to win.

Updates

8-4-05: Added note.