Rethinking the WOT

The New York Times Magazine has an interesting and sometimes amusing article on Mr Obama’s ‘War on Terrorism’, as the magazine repeatedly calls it. (Getting honest again, are we?) Cynical slacker that I am, it’s the amusing bits that caught my attention—as when the incoming president got word that there was a plot to attack the inauguration ceremony. One precaution taken was to hide Robert Gates, the once and future Secretary of Defense, since at the moment of transition he would be the only confirmed cabinet officer, hence a potential president if Mr Obama and Mr Biden were killed. Remember the hilarity following 9/11 when Dick Cheney was whisked off to an ‘undisclosed location’? Not so funny, Muffy, now that one of our own is at risk!

Despite the headline writers, Mr Obama himself won’t use the T word, even when recast as an ism: ‘Obama rejects the phrase “war on terror” altogether, hoping to recast the struggle as one of a number of vital challenges confronting America. The nation is at war with Al Qaeda, Obama says, but not with terrorism, which, as he understands it, is a tactic, not an enemy.’ That’s a distinction, but is it a difference? Would we have fought World War II more intelligently if we had declared that we weren’t at war with Germany, only with its Nazi party? Blue skies! – Dan Ford