War on 'war on terror'
Jim Harper (rightly) takes the Telegraph's Nile Gardiner to task for criticizing President Obama and VP Biden's decision to drop the phrase 'war on terror.'
Gardiner writes:
President Obama's decision to abandon the phrase "war on terror" sends the wrong signal to al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorists groups. America and her allies are engaged in a long-term global war against a vicious enemy that seeks the free world's destruction, whether in Afghanistan, Iraq or in the cities of Europe and the United States. This is hardly the time to be engaging in a cynical PR exercise which will only serve to soften America's image in the eyes of its worst enemies.
Harper's response:
The relevant audience is not al Qaeda and terrorists groups. It's the people near them ideologically and physically. These people are deciding whether or not to join them or support them.Communicating that the United States is war-mongering and fearful of al Qaeda makes us look bad to these audiences, and it makes al Qaeda look like a worthy opponent of ours. We could do terrorism no better favor than continuing to claim a "war" on terror featuring al Qaeda.Is dropping "war on terror" a "cynical PR exercise"? No. It's a hard-headed, strategically sound PR exercise - again, to bring terrorists' ideological and physical neighbors toward our side.
Agreed.
