Adm. Mullen has no use for ‘Global War on Terror’

Still new to the job, Adm. Michael Mullen, the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has already made an interesting rhetorical shift.

Seems the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Adm. Michael Mullen, has banned the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror” (GWOT) and has prohibited using it “in any future correspondence,” according to a Sept. 27 e-mail from a Mullen aide.

Good move. It’s not all together clear what Mullen prefers as a title for our counter-terrorism efforts — I suppose it’s possible his label could be worse — but I’m inclined to consider this an encouraging sign.

Of course, if Bush’s hand-picked chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff no longer believes in calling the conflict a “global war on terror,” I suppose the White House should stop condemning those of us who agree with Adm. Mullen about the utility (or lack thereof) of the label.

As Satyam noted, as recently as the summer, Bush argued, “This notion about how this isn’t a war on terror in my view is naive. It doesn’t reflect the true nature of the world in which we live, you know?”

Actually, what I do know is that if Adm. Mullen has banned use of the phrase “Global War on Terror,” and the White House and its political allies are fine with that, I can think of some Republicans who owe the rest of us an apology.

In April, the Democratic majority of the House Armed Services Committee said it would stop using the phrase “global war on terror,” as part an effort to “avoid using colloquialisms.” Congressional Republicans went berserk.

Democrats and Republicans are at odds on whether to use President Bush’s catchall phrase “global war on terrorism” when talking about the billions of dollars spent each year in Iraq and elsewhere.

A new internal memo by a senior Democratic staff member urged aides to drop the term from their legislative dictionaries because it was too broad. The directive quickly led to a linguistic dispute between the parties.

“The attempt by Democrats to erase the words ‘global’ and ‘terror’ from our current war is an absurd effort to deny the fact that America is battling terrorism on a global scale,” said House Republican leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. “How do Democrats expect America to fight and win a war they deny is even taking place?”

The RNC pushed the “story” aggressively, House Republicans released hard-hitting press releases, and far-right blogs expressed predictable outrage. To hear Boehner & Co. tell it, if Dems didn’t use the phrase “war on terror,” then they were denying the existence of counter-terrorism efforts. To suggest there’s something wrong with the phrase, the GOP said, is to suggest there’s something wrong with combatting terrorists.

I suppose it’s safe to assume, then, that Boehner, the White House, and the same conservatives who were whining bitterly in April will be equally forceful in condemning Mullen now?

Adm Mullen sent out an impressive message to servicemembers this week. http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=32228

  • The Global War On a Psychological State (or a Nefarious Tactic) will forthwith be known as the Global War On Everything™.

  • I don’t supposed I would mind as much “Global War on Terror,” if I thought it was truly a global effort to go after terrorists and not just a cutesy acronym and if global meant more than Iraq, Iran, and al Queda.

  • Terrorism does not require WAR as a response. Terrorism requires cooperative and united police actions by all civilized countries. The Bush administration has been pushing Global War, not a program to defeat terrorism.

  • Everytime Boehner opens his mouth…Lindsey Graham has an orgasm. Terror, terror, terror, terror…condemn, condemn, condemn, condemn…did I leave anything out concerning these two? I doubt it. Mullen just took away their favorite sound byte to justify nearly everything that comes out of their mouths.

  • Adm. Michael Mullen, has banned the use of the phrase “Global War on Terror” […] — WaPo
    Democrats and Republicans are at odds on whether to use President Bush’s catchall phrase “global war on terrorism”[…] — USAToday

    USAToday is wrong. For whatever reason — probably because it’s shorter and easier to remember — Bush’s catchall phrase is GW on *terror*, not “terrorism.

    There’s a difference between the two; the first one (war on terror) is easy to conduct, on the cheap: just issue a Prozac a day (to keep terrors away), to every Republican in the US. Because, of course, it’s not “global”, either; it’s limited in its scope to the US Republicans, esp in Congress.

    Drew P, @1

    It *is* an interesting statement. My favourite quote was this one:

    To the degree the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan contribute to or detract from a stable, secure Middle East, they bear a direct effect on the security of the United States.

    He’s actually considering — in public — the possibility of us *DEstabilising* Middle East with out misadventures? A Bush nominee who actually seems so exhibit a realistic “take” on the situation??? Will wonders never cease?

    Now, let’s see if he actually *means* any of what he’s said or if he’s just another “compassionate conservative” hack, who’s all ears to Bush and Cheney but not to those he promised to listen to.

  • It’s rather difficult to shoot a concept or blow up an emotion, and this facile catchphrase–a typical Republican bumper sticker approach–drives me crazy. However, if we’re going to declare war on words, I suggest that we attack arrogance and hubris next.
    I also refuse to use “the homeland”, which has such strong fascist echoes. Let’s have a Department of National Security and protect the United States.

  • Re: Georgette Orwell @ #9

    Or how about abolishing the Dept. of Fatherland “Security” and utilizing the U.S. Armed Forces for the purpose that was prescribed in the Constitution –that of National Defense (as opposed to interventionist, imperialist adventurism)? There’s a novel concept.

  • Comments are closed.