In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the "global struggle against violent extremism," the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.
Good. I didn't like the change. But how embarrassing to change and then change back.
पोस्ट्स
९ टिप्पण्या:
I am not a fan of the phrasing of war on terror, but the change was even worse. the war is not on terror, or terrorism, it is against terrorists, and specifically violent and insane terrorists.
- they only want us, our children and our way of life dead, dead, dead - what the hell difference does it make what we call the intent? It is like saying a man was shot to death, then debating whether or not he was actually gunned down. Sheesh!
Goesh -- I think we already did that on the Vincent post.
one "dead" would have sufficed I suppose - I long too much for the days before Bush when there was no insurrection, or spiritual mandate, against our way of life. Call me a dreamer if you want, I don't care.
It's amazing really, how inarticulate George Bush is.
His father was worse, of course.
Eisenhower was obscure, and liked talking in military lingo and phraseology, which sounds like gobbletygook to the outsider, but he wasn't inarticulate, really.
Coolidge was an elegant writer, but tightlipped. Taciturn is not inarticulate.
But George really can't express himself well at all. This "what to call our war kerfluffle," is another manifestation of it, I think.
All that being said, I think he's one of the most accomplished administrators I've ever seen. I can't understand why people who disagree with him think he's stupid. To be a politician, and be unable to talk, disqualifies him somehow.
To George, all words are hammers. He has nothing flowerey to say. He acts. This is foreign to the striped pants set, but he says what he's going to do, and does it.
To people accustomed to hearing politicians say one thing while watching them do another, and the minute calculation and predictions of what a politician might do after he's done talking ragtime, he's mystifying, I guess.
Shame on the Republicans that voted for him thinking the Compassionate Conservative thing was a dodge, and hoped he'd be a slasher, and were surprised to find him doggedly pursuing No Child Left Behind and so forth, and shame on his Democrat detractors for praying his audacious attempt to civilize the mideast fails, because they can't stand him.
And triple shame on the knuckleheads in the White House who tried to put these words in his mouth. They just fall out, and clang to the floor anyway. Let him say what he thinks, as best he can, and vote for or against him, as you will.
And if you oppose him, hope he succeeds anyway. It's the American thing to do. I didn't want Kosovo to fail because I didn't vote for Clinton.
I like "War on Terror". Yes, it wasn't really accurate. But it was catchy.
I really don't know how best to describe where we are right now. The problems with "war on Islamic Extremism" are that it alienates some much needed allies, and doesn't include N. Korea.
But then, the Axis of Evil has always been a weird collection of states that weren't getting along with. Sure, Iran and Iraq were actively involved in backing terrorism, but N. Korea was just oppressing its people, developing nuclear weapons, and selling arms to whomever it could.
On the other hand, Iran really didn't fit because it doesn't oppress its people nearly as much as many other countries in this world. (Kenneth Pollack in his new book "The Persian Puzzle" suggests that the Iranian inclusion was to round the Axis out to the requisite three, and, was a strategic mistake).
"Global Struggle against Violent Extremism" fails as a slogan for a number of reasons. A "global struggle" is much less compelling than a "War". And what really is "Violent Extremism" anyway?
Add to that that neither Iran nor N. Korea really qualify for "violent extremism". Rather, the violent extremists are the terrorists in Iraq and the bombers in the UK.
Maybe the answer is to appropriate the word "Jihad". Maybe, "Jihad against violent reactionary Islam". Or "Jihad against Muslims refusing to leave the 14th Century".
I must have missed something. Has the Bush team ever expressed any thought where any form of the word 'embarrass' might possibly be used?
I'm not sure I see why they should be embarrassed. Everyone makes mistakes. Smart people fix them. And you can hardly fault them for trying to find a more precise description with all the flak they've gotten from people who share Michael J. Totten's option.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा