Alfredo Deambrosi

The Washington Post reports that “‘Global War On Terror’ Is Given New Name.”  The White House uses “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

Assuming that the new term is more accurate, does the accuracy justify the obscurity?  Or is the new term a euphemism that, like many euphemisms, may be an attempt to deceive?

Years ago, Ronald Reagan avoided the term “tax increases” and used “revenue enhancements” instead.  I wonder whether Obama’s new term also ignores some negative realities.

Below are some quotations from the article.

-=-=-=-=-=-

“The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase ‘global war on terror,’ a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.”

-=-=-=-=-=-

“In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s office of security review noted that ‘this administration prefers to avoid using the term “Long War” or “Global War on Terror” [GWOT.] Please use “Overseas Contingency Operation.’ ”

-=-=-=-=-=-

But critics abroad and at home, including some within the U.S. military, said the terminology ["Global War on Terror"] mischaracterized the nature of the enemy and its abilities. Some military officers said, for example, that classifying al-Qaeda and other anti-American militant groups as part of a single movement overstated their strength.

-=-=-=-=-=-

“Our strategy should be to divide and conquer rather than make of enemies more than they are,” said Nagl, now president of the Center for a New American Security, a defense policy think tank in Washington. “We are facing a number of different insurgencies around the globe — some have local causes, some of them are transnational. Viewing them all through one lens distorts the picture and magnifies the enemy.”