The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead...
More at The Washington Post.
Comments
I agree with Chris. I don't think you'll see President Obama address the nation and refer to it as our "Overseas Contingency Operation." That said, the wars do need a new name. "GWOT" was always stupid. "Long War" is probably an apt description, but it's a politically untenable name for the ongoing conflicts. If elected officials began referring to this thing as the "The Long War," you'd see public support for the wars go into free fall. Consequently, public support for elected officials would follow. It's terrible messaging. People don't want a daily reminder of the potential length of the wars.
Why don't we just call them the Iraq War and Afghanistan War respectively? They were completely unrelated in the first place, so do we really need an all-encompassing moniker? If we end up fighting in the Horn of Africa, we can just call that the East African War. And if these global conflicts are really so tied together, then we should probably just get on with it and refer to this thing as World War Three.
If you read further you learn that this isn't actually official guidance and there has been no policy change, so I think it's sort of misleading for Kamen to title the piece in such a way.
That said, I too prefer The Long War. "Overseas Contingency Operation" sounds like a general term of reference, a label for a category of engagement rather than an identifier for a specific campaign. It just sounds like bureaucratese to me (which is maybe the point).
Personally as a citizen, I unabashedly disagree. Call it what it is and bring dignity to those who are fighting it and dying to achieve our policy objectives.
I don't think there is any PR value in this, in fact I'd say there is greater risk. I was not a fan of GWOT - but at least it had the word "war" in it as a qualifier. Men and women, their families and the public knew the stakes as such.
Somehow, being directed to refer to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as "contingency operations" just leaves me cold.
Rob