The "can't wage a war against a tactic" phrase is kind of tiring - of course you can. It was a tired way of trying to discredit Rumsfeld scaremongering as far as terrorism was concerned, but it wasn't difficult to understand what was meant with "war on terror(ism)."

Whether you can effectively wage war on terror(ism) militarily, or whether you should attempt other methods, is worthy of discussion.
What has happened, is that military tacticts and materiel has been adapted for the kind of "hunt them out and kill them" approach that preventive WOT requires, with signal, electric, human intelligence gathering being used in very sophisticated ways.
In effect, though, it turned the military into a police force, instead of a force to be kept ready for major efforts.

The fact that War on Terror isn't to be used, is most likely because it connects too strongly to a failed administration, and a failed approach. It really did become "a long hard slog."

The Wingnuts are, naturally, up in arms about the fact that the Obama administration is walking away from "complete victory in Iraq." That's a goal that was never achievable, particularly because the goalposts were never set for what a victory looked like.
The day all those concrete barriers are gone, and US military and civilian personnel can walk about without protective gear and patrols, one may dare a tight-lipped "love the smell of victory" - but that day is far, far away.
What Iraq achieved, was draw resources away from effectively battling terrorism, through identifying and neutralizing terrorist groups. It appears we're going to get back on track now, with strong efforts in Afghanistan/Pakistan.

Though - to end with another tired sentence: "Then roll to your gun and go like a soldier" - from Kipling's poem about the fate awaiting any foreign invaders who lingers too long in those regions.

Thank god we are finally seeing a real push to remove the phrase "war on terror" from the American lexicon. These amorphous terms are the tools governments use to implement radical policies.

Hopefully, the pubic will know better the next time such a device is put out for consumption.

Sorry Stein, you can't wage a war against a tactic. But you can use the "war on terror" to invade a country that had nothing to do with a specific act of terrorism to implement a radical neocon policy for changing the Middle East.

Words do count and pushing these terms into public discourse preconditions the public to agree with your policies. That's why the discussion about whether the "war" would be effective never took place.

Don't you just love interviewers with a bee in their bonnet who waste an opportunity in their efforts to get a specific answer? Wallace apparently only did homework to respond to one answer and when he didn't get it, kept digging.

Dealing with stupid fearmongers like Wallace requires a new catchphrase---like GWoSF*

*Global War on Stupid Fearmongers.

It is usually ironic, and often unintentionally hilarious when an ideolog lets his ideology drive his career. Whatever itmay be; newsman, scientist, philosopher.

Hopefully, we can shitcan the War on Drugs now, too.

Steve Benen wrote: "Besides, we can't wage a war against a tactic anyway."

Sure we can.

You are no doubt aware that there is an international "war" against the use of land mines -- which is a particular military tactic.

The war against the use of landmines has sought to enact a universal, international treaty which would bind signatory nations to abstain from the use of land mines.

There is no reason that a genuine "war on terrorism" might not seek to enact a universal, international treaty which would bind signatories to abstain from the use, support or tolerance of terrorism.

Of course, any such genuine "war on terrorism" would have no resemblance to the ruthless, rapacious, corporate-military imperialist aggression that the Cheney-Bush administration conducted under cover of that slogan.

And unfortunately, the United States of America, which has historically been one of the world's biggest supporters of terrorism, would be unlikely to agree to any treaty that banned such support -- just as the USA has refused to agree to the treaty banning land mines.

Stein--

Wanted to get the full flavor of the Kipling verse to which you alluded.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

Yeah, increasing our military presence there: great idea. Did the Soviets a world of good.

SecularAnimist: There is a very good reason why you put the word "war" in quotes up there. You did that because, of course, it isn't a war at all. It is a treaty movement. We aren't sending in the troops to actually wage war against landmines. We would be idiots if we did.

Likewise, these conservatives are idiots for suggesting that you can wage war against the tactic of terrorism. You wage war against people, not against their tactics.

Using the word "war" to describe what is (or should be) a peaceful diplomatic/social issue is very problematic, because the rhetoric has a tendency to influence the outcome. Look at what happened in the "war" on drugs. It has become a literal war, with the police waging it against the citizenry.

No, Mr. Benen is absolutely right on this one. You really can't wage war on a tactic. If you try, it inevitably becomes a war against someone. In the case of the so-called "war" on terror, it has become a war on Arabs and Moslems. And that has become a rather major liability for us, because it makes the problem of Islamic terrorism worse, not better.

The "can't wage a war against a tactic" phrase is kind of tiring - of course you can.

No, you can't. You can wage a war against a particular enemy, that is, an organized group of people. A war against anything else—whether it is a relative material state (the "War on Poverty"), a tactic (a "war against terrorism"), or an emotion (the "War on Terror"), or anything else that isn't a particular organized group—isn't a war in the literal sense, but only in (at most) a metaphorical sense. When its used as a label for something that is, in fact, an armed conflict, it either is a deliberate attempt to obscure who the actual enemy is or is a result of a fatal unclearness on the part of those prosecuting the armed conflict on the rather fundamental question of who they are fighting against.

i'm trying to understand this ...

what is the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff doing on fox news dishing about his conversations with the president about counter-terrorism?

i thought republicanistas were terribly concerned about the terrorists finding out what the US government is up to.

i just cannot keep their rules straight.

It might be a war on terrorisTS, if you could send whole battalions against a couple jerks holed up in an apartment somewhere planning to hurt people with a backpack bomb.

WAR is such a profoundly powerful word against a small collection of bloodthirsty loons. It gives them way too much credit.

We need to use our brains; engage in smart tactics, tactful diplomacy, benevolent alliances to find out who these whack jobs are and haul 'em in. How do you declare "war" on what may be as few as a couple thousand people?

It's like declaring war and bringing on the full destructive capacity of the United states on fewer people than Dubuque, Iowa, spread out over the globe. (city chosen for comedic sound rather than any demographic advantage)

Now when an actual COUNTRY defends this handful of murderers, you got yourself a war. That lasts for a few weeks.... then it's back to the unglamorous cleanup procedures to locate and stuff the crummy bastards.

"Besides, we can't wage a war against a tactic anyway."
Dude, it's not even a tactic. Terrorism is the tactic. Waging a war on terror is as pointless as waging a war on sadness. Or pure fucking idiocy, in the case of Chris Wallace.

The "war on terror" has in common with the "war on drugs" a curious ambivalence in the preposition "on."

A dispassionate observer might be forgive for thinking that either of these enterprises is, respectively, orchestrated by parties who are hopped up "on" psychopharmaceuticals or raw emotive fear.

Besides, we can't wage a war against a tactic anyway.

Shorter Chris Wallace:
"Didn't you get The Memo? Is there a NEW Memo?"

Whoa, hold up, if there's no war on terror does that mean we can't nuke somebody? We have to nuke somebody, the only way I can achieve sexual gratification, if you will, is if we goddamn nuke somebody! Aaaaarrrhhhhhh!!! (sobs bitterly)

Love, Dick

Can't we just say, "the struggle against terrorism"? And yes, you can struggle against a tactic via the people who do it - so please folks, stop pounding out that well-intentioned and somewhat apt, but sophomoric and misleading line "you can't wage war on a tactic" etc.

I tried to fight the war on terror personally by following the advice of the great President Bush by going shopping and taking a vacation, but it didn't seem to work out so well.

"Can't we just say, "the struggle against terrorism"?"

Go right ahead. It sounds fine to me.

"so please folks, stop pounding out that well-intentioned and somewhat apt, but sophomoric and misleading line "you can't wage war on a tactic" etc."

Why should we stop saying something that is **ABSOLUTELY TRUE**? Words matter. I don't know why this is so hard for some people to understand.

When you talk about waging war, and that becomes your central rhetorical point, then sooner or later you will literally be waging a war. And wars are fought against people, not against the tactics they use. This has happened so many times already, with the "war" on drugs (now a real war of police against citizens) and the "war" on terror (now a real war of USA against Arabs and Moslems) just to name two, and yet some people still act like arguing over the words is just silly quibbling.

Your words become your thoughts.

Your thoughts become your attitudes.

Your attitudes become your actions.

Your actions become your character.

Your character becomes your destiny.

the "war on terror" has "became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab."

That will not change if the U.S. changes the name, because most of the enemy combatants and proponents of the consistent use of terror tactics are Islamic terrorists.

It is frequently said that you can't fight "terror" because it is a tactic. But "the war on terror" is a fight against those who use the tactic, and as a name it's better than most proposed alternative names . It's mostly a "war against Islamist terrorists", though it is also a war against other terrorists, like Basque terrorists, American terrorists (McVeigh et al), MILF terrorists.

This has been a great discussion--thanks for all the comments.

I find the phrase "war on terror" so incomplete, that I'm thrilled it's being uses less and less, as it's really only served to dumb us all down.

There is so much more involved in a movement aimed at eradicating extremist efforts than just warring against a tactic or a people who employ that tactic. Empowering the people (in Afghanistan, for example the opium/poppy trade is fueling the problem) with other means to make a living would make a huge difference.

Marler: The very obvious problem, as anyone who has been paying attention for the past 8 years could tell you, is that you can't defeat terrorism by warring against it. It isn't a military problem, it is a law enforcement and diplomacy problem.

When you treat people with respect and create a good, stable economy, terrorism becomes extremely rare. And when you arrest terrorists and run them through the civilian criminal justice system, you get much better results than you do by dropping bombs and sending in troops.

The Bush administration's few successes against terrorists over the past 8 years was when cases against them were pressed by the FBI and the DoJ rather than by the military. Meanwhile, the occupation of Iraq has inflamed radical hatred against us, and the military court system has proven to be an unmanageable nightmare that probably couldn't even convict Osama Bin Laden himself, let alone any of the Guantanamo inmates.

It's mostly a "war against Islamist terrorists", though it is also a war against other terrorists, like Basque terrorists, American terrorists (McVeigh et al), MILF terrorists.

Really? I've never heard it used except to refer to terrorism by Islamic extremists. Which is, you know, the problem. They should have just called it "the war on Islam" rather than being weaselly and trying to claim it was a war on all of those who use terror tactics when it clearly wasn't.

@DocAmazing

When I reviewed Helene Carrere d'Encausse's book on the revolt of the Soviet republics, back in 1978, I used that poem, to illustrate the inanity of trying to change much in tribal Afghanistan. It's an Ozymandian thing, I guess, armies have broken their backs there for ages.

The War on Terror, Actions against terrorism, etc - is just a silly sidetrack discussion. Everyone knows what is meant - the identification and neutralization of acts of terrorism, through whatever means possible.
But we also know that WOT was misused by the Bush administration as a pretext for invading Iraq, in order to gain control of that nation's oil and gas reservoirs. That still does not mean military tactics and strategies cannot be used against potential terrorists -- but there are very likely much more effective ways of waging that battle.

Asymmetrical warfare is a strategy, it is waged through various tactical means - whether you fade your army into the jungle, or try and strike where your superior enemy is the most vulnerable, with as few resources as possible, and possibly through acts of terrorism.
Concerted actions against such a strategy would include military assets being used - whether you then choose to call it WoT, GWoT, or whatever, doesn't really matter - what should concern one is whether there are better ways of attaining one's goals than committing the standing army, navy, air force, intelligence services, National Guard and whoever happens to be walking past the recruiting office, to patrol Iraq on behalf of your buddy "The George Washington of Iraq."

At any rate, the enemy was in Afghanistan (but there weren't any good targets there, said Rumsfeld.) So they made the Buttle/Tuttle mistake of going to Iraq, hoping Iran would fall as the people rose in revolt (another Cheney/Perle fantasy.)

It's all going to end spectacularly badly ...

The War on Terror, Actions against terrorism, etc - is just a silly sidetrack discussion. Everyone knows what is meant - the identification and neutralization of acts of terrorism, through whatever means possible.

No, "everyone" does not, and that is why you keep hearing the admittedly trite and tiring statement "you can't wage war on a tactic."

"War" is emotionally loaded and has many denotations and connotations. Personally, I thought I knew what any sane person means when they use "war" as a metaphor for "extended struggle," but I was proven wrong by the spinmeisters in the Bush administration -- who, in my opinion, very clearly manipulated a large portion of our population at a time when they were most vulnerable emotionally.

As many previous commenters have noted, many Americans understood the word "war" in the literal sense. Army to army. Human to human. American vs. some demonic enemy. They weren't thinking about systemic approaches to the societal threat of terrorism and asymmetric warfare (two different, but sometimes related things). They were thinking about kicking some enemy's ass to relieve the emotional wounds of 9-11.

The use of war as metaphor might be relatively harmless if you are talking about something other than national security policy. But once you've associated the word with national security, conflation with traditional and/or legal definitions of war seems inevitable.

We all can't be rational all of the time. That's why our leaders should be careful with their word choice.