You know that "war on terror" our troops have been fighting for two years? Yeah, that's over.
Now, we're involved in a "global stuggle against violent extremism." (It just rolls off the tongue.) The White House has decided that the "war on terror" moniker that's been a catch phrase for so long just isn't cutting it anymore. "War," of course, implies death and destruction and flag-drapped coffins (and heaven knows, we don't want to think about those). Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he thinks that "war" implies that uniformed troops are the answer. (Wait? You mean they're not?!) And Steven J. Hadley, the national security advisor, told The New York Times, "It's broader than [a war on terror.] It's a global struggle against extremism. We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative."
I fail to see how a retooled name is going to offer a positive alternative. American citizens aren't stupid, and they've been catching on lately that the war isn't effective. Recent polls show that only 34 percent of Americans think the United States and its allies are "winning" the war, and 45 percent think the United States' presence has actually increased the risk of a terrorist attack. And those Americans who don't approve of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at an all-time high of 57 percent.
If creative branding is what the White House is interested in, maybe it should look to the business world. The airline company called US Air changed its name to US Airways. In 2004, US Airways filed for bankruptcy. There was McCall's magazine, a 125-year old periodical with rapidly declining circulation. In 2001, it renamed itself Rosie. Fewer than 18 months later, publication ceased. And then there's perhaps everyone's favorite: Philip Morris. What do you do when you're a widely despised manufacturer of a cancer-causing product that you've knowingly marketed to children? You change your name to Altria, as Philip Morris did in 2003. But Altria still faces millions of dollars in liability settlements and has not enjoyed a revival of public support. So it seems that a name change is not the way to go. If things are going badly, merely changing words doesn't help. Of course, we're not talking about airlines or magazines or even cigarettes here. We're talking about an ill-advised, unneccessary and poorly planned war.
Name changes don't fool anyone—consumers or citizens—and if the Bush administration thinks that a new name will give the Iraq debacle a new image, they're going to be unpleasantly suprised. Everyone knows the old axiom about lipstick on a pig.
--Laura Donnelly |
Tuesday 2:50 PM
