Tuesday, Apr. 07, 2009

Changing war name a bad idea

I’ve recently heard that some people in the Obama administration don’t like the term “global war on terror.”

From a conceptual standpoint, I can understand some objection to the term. Is terrorism a tactic or type of war?

Terrorism is an idea, not a physical presence. All terrorists didn’t attack us. Islamist fanatics who were terrorists did that. That’s at least true for the Sept. 11 attacks, anyway.

I still remember the U.S. Army Europe commander’s armored limousine being hit with a rocket propelled grenade in the 1980s when I was stationed in Europe.

All this means that I understand some disquiet over the phrase coined by the Bush administration. And if I were still a student at the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., I would have had a grand time debating the right words.

However, those days are long gone and I wonder if making a change now is smart.

I am particularly concerned when I hear on television news and read on Military.com a UPI report that the acceptable phrase is something like overseas contingency operation.

That’s a very descriptive phrase for many things that the military services does.

I did read one report that this was not an official change, but just an overly zealous civil servant speculating about a preferred phrase. If so, maybe he, or she, ought to go to SAMS. He’d have fun arm-wrestling words.

Major concern

My real concern stems from a fear that we will become complacent. This country has not yet acted as if we were in a war. There’s no real sense of sacrifice on the part of the citizenry unless someone is working in government service of some sort or has a family member who is in one of the military services.

I don’t think we’ve fought a war where the people felt the effect of the war every day since World War II.

It seems that since then our political leaders have tried very hard to isolate our population from being a part of any war that we’ve fought. The outcome is that our military services and civilian agencies involved in safety, security and intelligence operations feel the effects, but the rest of us do not.

Abstract concept

War almost becomes an abstract concept. I think that’s very bad. When we citizens don’t feel the impact, how can we make a rational choice about any government action that affects our prosecuting a war?

How can we appreciate the sacrifices of the people who are deeply involved?

This is why changing the name of the “global war on terror” to a phrase that de-emphasizes the war as well as the violence, death and destruction associated with it worries me a bit.

I agree that the global war on terror may not be the best philosophical description of our actions. Nonetheless, at least the phrase indicates that we’re in a war.

There is no doubt in my mind that the people who wanted to kill us still want to do just that. Until we find another phrase that keeps war in the name, I think we better leave it alone.

John M. House is a retired Army colonel who lives in Midland, Ga. His e-mail is housearmylife@aol.com.