It’s possible that the term “War on Terror” may be outmoded, but surely there were better options than this:
Strange times we live in, where naming a conflict can become more important than prosecuting the fight to a victorious conclusion. So the name for the pain is now politically incorrect. Fine. Though surely there exists a handle for the war that isn’t completely lame? Take operation, for example. That doesn’t even acknowledge that the GWOT is a war, but rather some sort of localized police action. An apt enough title in the slowly quieting Iraqi theater, but anyone who thinks Afghanistan is a “contingency operation” is off his chair. As for “global?” Unpopular? Maybe. Accurate? Definitely. Overseas may sound definitively less imperial, but at least dubbing it the Global War on Terrorism acknowledged that the fight transcended the twin theaters in Iraq and Afghanistan, with enemies ripe in places like the Philippines, Sub-Saharan Africa, Europe, and even South America — where groups like the FARC support Islamic insurgencies with drug money to help keep the Pentagon occupied. If “Overseas Contingency Operation” is an accurate projection of how the Obama administration views the Global War on Terrorism, then suspicions that the president is a poor custodian of the national defense may be well founded.
