Posted by
Dennis Pemberton on Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:01:01 PM
According to this article:
http://860wgul.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2009/02/01/under_obama,_`war_on_terror_catchphrase_fading
President Obama is discontinuing the "War on Terror" phrase, but is apparently still searching for an acceptable alternative. Apparently, "war on terror" is impolitic, because they were words "which could imply that this was a struggle against a religion or a culture." Because the 9-11 hijackers, Tube bombers, Iraqi suicide bombers, Madrid bombers, Somali pirates, Bhutto assassins, Hamas rocketeers, etc. had nothing in common. In his typically soft fashion, President Obama has called whatever it is we're doing about people trying to kill us as an "enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism" and just an "ongoing struggle." But "struggle" has many problems as a replacement for "war." First, "struggle" is reminiscent of battling lower back pain or psoriasis, not mass murderers. Also, "struggle" calls to mind battles which are lost or unwinnable- "She struggled against cancer to the end," or "They struggled mightily against the floodwaters, but to no avail," etc. Finally, "struggle" is faintly Marxist in tone, which, even if he leans that way, is not a direction the President wants to advertise.
What is really funny about the article is the comment by Wayne Fields, professor of English and American culture studies at Washington University in St. Louis: "One of the contrasts between the two administrations is the care with which Obama uses language. He thinks about the subtle implications." Really? Like when he told Al Aribayah that he wanted to bring Arab-American relations to where they were 30 years ago. When Americans were being held hostage in Iran? President Obama is mush when it comes to everything except attacking Republicans. Batten down the hatches, America. The "War on Terror" has to be won- and it's not going to be won by calling it something else.