No more ‘War on Terror’

By Jennifer J. Foster

Published: March 31, 2009

... Well, at least not in the linguistic sense, anyway.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has news on the vocabulary front. From the Associated Press:

The top U.S. diplomat told reporters Tuesday that the Obama administration has quit using that line to describe the effort to fight terrorism around the world.

“The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself,“ Clinton said.

OK. Let’s break this down.

Obviously, ongoing terror efforts remain in the world, and they remain focused against the West—particularly the United States, as the leader of the Pakistani Taliban told the AP earlier today. (How’s that for current?)

Only fools would think that “terror” no longer exists.

So ... are we just not waging “war on” it anymore?

The story about this development goes on to say that “even close U.S. allies suggested (the phrase) was overly militaristic and perhaps counterproductive.“

I’m not exactly what you would consider a hawk in traditional terms. I’m all for diplomacy, in as many places and with as many tools and for as long as it is—well, let’s use their standard—“productive.“

But obviously, terrorists—such as the dude who vowed a few hours ago, “Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world,“ for example—aren’t going to be swayed by diplomatic efforts.

Overly militaristic? I don’t think so. They are at war with us. What’s counterproductive is to call it anything less than it is.