The AP recently examined President Obama’s efforts to shift away from the phrase “War on Terror”:
Since taking office less than two weeks ago, President Barack Obama has talked broadly of the “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.” Another time it was an “ongoing struggle.”
He has pledged to “go after” extremists and “win this fight.” There even was an oblique reference to a “twilight struggle” as the U.S. relentlessly pursues those who threaten the country.
But only once since his Jan. 20 inauguration has Obama publicly strung those three words together into the explosive phrase that coalesced the country during its most terrifying time and eventually came to define the Bush administration.
The reason behind the shift is twofold. AP notes that the term “War on Terror,” linked as it is to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has become a sticking point in public outreach efforts to Muslims. The “War on Terror” is frequently viewed as a war that includes among its targets groups that not all Muslims see as terroristic.
There’s also a re-branding effort at work here. “War on Terror” is part of the George W. Bush brand and carries with it all the implications of the brand. As President Obama seeks to establish his own brand, particularly in the realm of foreign policy, he needs to find new ways to articulate his goals.
Even Republicans have sought to put their own spin on the phrase. During his presidential run, Rudy Giuliani tried the cumbersome “Terrorists’ War against Us,” which signaled a shift in perspective but wasn’t bound to be on the tip of anyone’s tongue.
Does the wording matter? It could. “War on Terror” is actually a clear phrase that identifies with whom the country is at war – not Muslims, not Iraq, not the concept of dictatorship, but terror(ism).
The phrase also served two crucial purposes in 2001/2002. First, it established that we were, in the president’s view, “at war,” not simply retaliating on a tit-for-tat basis to terrorist attacks. The president’s goal was to conjure all that the term “war” implies – a fierce and sustained effort that is grueling and risky, but advances a geopolitical goal.
Second, “War on Terror,” as opposed to “War on the Taliban” or “War on al Qaeda” made it clear that we were waging war on a threat, however it was manifested, including, as the president often said, by those who harbor or support terrorists.
You can make a credible case that these needs no longer exist – that the country is fully aware of the nature and scope of our effort to vanquish terrorism. If that’s the case, “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism” may serve the same purpose without all that Bush baggage (even if it is less punchy).
But the challenge for President Obama will be to make sure that by jettisoning “War on Terror,” he doesn’t signal to a country already tired of war that the war is over.
