Observing Senator Barack Obama during this much talked about international trip has been generally refreshing.  Here is a potential commander-in-chief who seems to understand the broader strategic challenges that the country faces politically and militarily.  His insistence that we focus on "finishing the fight" in Afghanistan and western Pakistan is head-smackingly obvious.  Afghanistan served as the staging area for the attacks on 9/11 and an attack on those who planned that attack was just and a commonsense response.  As Obama has long argued, Iraq has distracted us from this just cause and strategically sound mission.   George Bush’s war alienated the world community.  The world watched America, the leader and purported moral guide of the free world, attack a country that did not attack us and, even worse, saw Bush and his cronies purposely conflate Iraq with the attacks of 9-11.  Of course, there was no "Al-Qaeda" in Iraq until our invasion.  A sober re-assessment reveals how this conflation and distortion was successful in large part because of the administration’s branding of its campaign.  The all-encompassing “War on Terror" became the pithy slogan the Adminstration repeatedly deployed to conflate the just conflict in Afghanistan with that destructive and ill-concieved military adventure in Iraq.  Indeed, surveys still find disturbing numbers of Americans that believe Saddam Hussien was the 9-11 mastermind or that Al Qaeda had ties with the Iraqi government.  Too many Americans reconciled their cognitive dissonance as to the decision to attack Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with 9-11, and with no ties to terrorism, by repeating these three little words.   What if we never had those three little words? 

And so it is, as I watched Obama's presser in Jordan today -- while continuing to feel hopeful at the positive and productive direction the senator proposes to focus our political and military power – I still found myself occasionally jarred by the use of that familiar phrase: "The War on Terror." 

It made me wonder and argue at length with my always skeptical brother: Why appropriate any of the rhetoric of the failed policies of Mr. Bush?  Can't we definitely and completely turn away and reject the disaster of the last 8 years?   

Maybe diction is an insignificant or even strange place to start, but haven't we heard again and again in this campaign that "Words Matter".  Obama has very successfully at time sought to challenge "the mentality that got us into the Iraq War."  Part of that has been his rejection of the conventional wisdom that says Democrats have to act and talk like Republicans when it comes to terrorism.  He declared himself happy to have the debate with John McCain about who actually had the judgment to keep Americans safe -- explicitly challenging the idea that those who use the greatest hyperbole in describing our security challenges are the ones to be trusted most on the issue of national security.

So as long as we're challenging that conventional wisdom, why not challenge that very term which so easily serves to justify the parade of evils we've recently observed: indefinite detention, warrantless wiretaping, and massive civilian deaths.   

I am not the first to observe the perniciousness of the term. As George Lakoff observed on Alternet.org, the term is perhaps most successful at consolidating executive power, but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.[1] Dan Froomkin last year detailed on NiemanWatchdog.org that the United Kingdom has abandoned the phrase.[2]  As British Cabinet Secretary Hilary Benn explained:  

"'In the UK, we do not use the phrase 'war on terror' because we can't win by military means alone, and because this isn't us against one organised enemy with a clear identity and a coherent set of objectives…

"'It is the vast majority of the people in the world - of all nationalities and faiths - against a small number of loose, shifting and disparate groups who have relatively little in common apart from their identification with others who share their distorted view of the world and their idea of being part of something bigger. What these groups want is to force their individual and narrow values on others without dialogue, without debate, through violence. And by letting them feel part of something bigger, we give them strength.'"     

In addition, noted Froomkin, similar observations have been made by prominent Americans, including Lt. Gen. William E. Odom who wrote on NiemanWatchdog.org in October:

 “It is high time that leaders in Congress, opinion makers, candidates for public office nationwide and the press unmask the so-called ‘Global War on Terrorism’ for what it is: a slogan and a campaign that make al Qaeda and other such organizations far more effective than they would be if publicly ignored and quietly attacked by methods entirely within the limits of our constitutional rights.” 

Carter-era national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski made a similar point:

“The ‘war on terror’ has created a culture of fear in America. The Bush administration's elevation of these three words into a national mantra since the horrific events of 9/11 has had a pernicious impact on American democracy, on America's psyche, and on U.S. standing in the world.  Using this phrase has actually undermined our ability to effectively confront the real challenges we face from fanatics who may use terrorism against us. 

Dan Froomkin concluded that the only thing legitimately holding the American media back from wholesale abandonment of the phrase was the absence of a suitable and widely agreed-upon alternative.  He opined that the “campaign against radical Islamic terrorism," though not catchy, might be the most right.  Such a formulation would have its own difficulties and risks making the disparate and scattered groups more attractive and united while at the same time turning off moderate and progressive voices in the Muslim world.

Barack Obama may have stumbled upon the answer.  His renewed focus on those who attacked us on 9-11 and finishing that fight has served as an opportunity to return American foreign policy to its moorings, a doctrine which rejects unilateral militarism and prolonged war posturing.  Counter-terrorism operations will always be an important part of American National Security.  And as John Kerry learned, being seen as advocating a purely reactionary and law enforcement approach to terrorism opens one to charges of complacency in a dangerous world.  Counter-terrorism operations, "War on Terror" type activity -- like the fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the disruption of terrorist activities in other parts of the world -- – will undoubtedly continue, especially in the face of the significant increase in terror related incidents of the last 8 years.  But what if we just got rid of the term? 

Barack Obama should call this renewed focus on Afghanistan and the lawless regions in western Pakistan by its proper name: The 9-11 War.

It is The 9-11 War which sensibly seeks to defeat those who had a hand in planning and supporting the devastating attacks on our country 7 years ago.  In Afghanistan, The 9-11 War seeks to dismantle the Taliban, which provided Bin Laden and Al Qaeda sanctuary and a base of operations.  It seeks to reclaim the rights of those that suffered under the extreme rule of the Taliban and create a free, pluralistic, and democratic society.  In Pakistan, The 9-11 War seeks to eliminate what is widely believed to be the new sanctuary and base of operations for Bin Laden and Al Qaeda.  We will work to destroy terrorist training camps where young disaffected Muslim men are brainwashed and sent out to kill.  We will bring the rest of the people responsible for 9-11 to justice.  In this way, The 9-11 War provides our country, our military, and the rest of the world a defined and measurable objective with respect to our foreign policy. 

The choice between waging The 9-11 War and conducting other counter-terrorism activites is a false one. The other activities, the counter-terrorism efforts that will continue, are something else entirely.  They are not, as the UK Secretary observed, directed against a discrete group of people with a unified ideology.  Instead, those efforts seek to root out the efforts of disparate and diverse groups who in their own unique circumstances would seek to violently disturb the legitimate political process whether because of their desire to accomplish their own political aims or simply to destroy and disrupt the civil order.

Barack Obama should slowly begin to extract himself from the sloppy and unproductive rhetoric that Mr. Bush has tried to saddle us all with in his efforts to continue his policies in Iraq and his expansion of executive power at home.   Is it possible for a candidate and eventual President Obama to deliver us from the "War on Terror" rhetoric?   

Barack Obama should ask Americans to redouble their efforts and focus their attention on finishing The 9-11 War.  That war in which we are currently seeking to root out elements of the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan and to reduce the operational capabilities of Al Qaeda and groups sympathetic. 

This would not, as critics would invariably charge, demonstrate naivity regarding the enormoity of the threat posed by such groups or surrender to those groups.  Instead, a candidate and President Obama should explain to Americans that we should refuse to give these groups the platform and significance implied by an unending and limitless war campaign.  Counterterrorism efforts, including efforts to secure nuclear weapons and efforts to curb nuclear proliferation will continue; in that sense, the War on Terror will continue.  But if tossing that useless phrase aids our ultimate goals by delegitimizing and weakening these groups, isn't it all for the better?  It could find a home next to the discarded and discredited rhetoric ("stay the course," "greeted as liberators," "last throes") which caused so much damage over the last 8 years.    

That would truly be refreshing.