What Will Republicans Do Without 'War on Terror' Talking Point?

by Taylor Marsh

It began on Fox News Sunday yesterday. He couldn't get a grip. Over and over in the interview between Chris Wallace and Adm. Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he just couldn't let go. Where was that old standby "war on terror" talking point? President Obama isn't using it. His aides aren't using it. Wallace could deduce only one thing: If people don't say "war on terror" then the extremists win. It was an exercise in juvenile journalism, but Wallace was determined.

Mike Wallace's little boy sounded like a kid who'd just lost his favorite dump truck:

WALLACE: Having said that, a lot of people have noticed that both the president and top advisers very seldom talk about the war on terror. Why is that?

From your conversations with him, does he see our fight against Islamic radicals differently than President Bush did?

MULLEN: It's very clear in my engagement with him that he is very focused on the terrorist extremist threat, and my guidance is to continue to pursue that in every possible way.

WALLACE: Does -- do you have any explanation as to why he doesn't talk about the war on terror?

MULLEN: No, I don't. I mean, I don't. I just told you what he's told me to do is focus very specifically on this threat, led by Al Qaeda, but certainly it's a top priority to focus on the terrorism and terrorists and the extremists that are out there who would -- who would do us harm.

WALLACE: Last question. As the nation's top military man, do you believe you are still leading a war against terrorism?

MULLEN: There is -- there are an awful lot of elements of terrorists and terrorism which threaten us, and we continue to very clearly pursue them, and we will until they're no longer a threat.

George W. Bush talked about "the war on terror" all the time. Look where that got us.

In the interview Mullen described the priority of focusing on the "terrorist extremist threat." That Obama has been clear that we will pursue them until they are no longer a threat.

That wasn't good enough for Wallace, who was obviously trying to weave a national security thread that presented President Obama and his administration as soft on terrorism.

But Mullen's strong statement used words that actually mean something, including utilizing all the tools we have available, not simply the military ones. For Wallace, that did not compute. Isn't war and military means the only way to win the "war on terror"?

Adm. Mullen was having none of it, as he answered Wallace's questions, a smile crept over his face the more Wallace kept pushing. That's likely because he's hardly the first chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to think the "war on terror" talking point is actually misleading, unhelpful and counterproductive. In other words, it doesn't work.

"General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had 'objected to the use of the term war on terrorism before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.' He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that 'terror is the method they use.'" (Source: International Herald Tribune - Via Think Progress)

Then again, there have been others like Donald Rumsfeld, who said it in an interview with Townhall:

Rumsfeld: "I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. ... Why do I say that? Because the word 'war' conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn't going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a 'war on terror.' Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So 'war on terror' is a problem for me." (source: Townhall)

Including George W. Bush himself, who gave up on it way back in 2004:

BUSH: "We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world." (source: Washington Post)

But count Chris Wallace out. He's evidently got another objective entirely, and without the "war on terror" talking point, which is all it ever was, Republicans will have to go back to the drawing board. Because when it comes to actually fighting the terrorist extremist threat, which we all know is very real, they don't have anything in their playbook but worn out slogans.

Comments

[Truby]

The real story is how "War on Terror" came to be. Terror is intangible. It has no county, leaders or followers for our troops to engage in warfare with. So from the start we lose. Stopping terrorism will require a flexibility not inherent to massed troops.

More than thirty years ago we declared a 'War on Drugs", costing us more than a trillion dollars and drugs flow more freely than ever and many foreign governments have become cogs in the narco-trafficking business. Even terrorist have found the profits from this fiasco useful.

[JJThinking]

Exactly. I never understood how or why the 'War of Terror' rhetoric was allowed to go unchecked be so-called intelligent people for all these years. You can't shoot a philosophy with a gun. You can't physically kill what' in the mind.

[Truby]

"You can't shoot a philosophy with a gun." Nice, I'll have to use that, with your permission.

[littleolwinemakerme]

Poor little Chris Wallace, if it wasn't for his Dad he probably wouldn't even have his gig. Mike's gotta cringe everytime sonny boy opens his mouth.

[katekid]

The bad news is, as a third world country, we will no longer prosecute traditional global wars.
The good news is our Dept. of Offense budget will finally be put to better societal use.

[aBr1t]

Furthermore, it is not a 'war on terror.' Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control.

sound abit like MSN...

oooh lets play with some words :P

Furthermore, it is not a 'war on OBAMA.' the media is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize the current administration and (through) a small group of right wing talking heads, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control.


wow how very funny!! haha

[Rule Of Law]

What will they do?

They'll start a real war, this time.

[rick390]

Wallace is not interested in news. He just wants to score a "gotcha" on someone that he can tie to Obama. Then he can say look at me, I just proved that Obama is soft on terrorism. Pathetic!

[jeffreyindc]

When will progressives get serious about Islamic supremacism, and defending equality and liberty, instead of worrying about what the Republicans do? Is our commitment to the inalienable human rights of equality and liberty against all supremacist ideologies a right-wing view, or a view held by all free people?

[greysells2]

Silly Mr. Mathews still reading from an old dog eared playbook with tired talking points. Mr. Matthews is a stand in for the Republicans who are still using the old playbook and have had little energy to come up with ideas and solutions that make sense to about 75% of the other Americans. The rump of 25% of rabid conservatives, the thoughly confused, the isolated and uneducated are descending into fratracide under the capable leadership of Ms. Coulter and Mr. Limbaugh. All the other and more moderate Republicans are running in ever decreasing circles until they fly up...Well you know how that one ends. They are comforting themselves in this crisis by cradling their guns, denying the environmental crisis, telling their childer to abstain, sending Mexicans to Mexico over the bridges that are falling down, fighting against science that made us the country we were. Etc. The road to nowhere.

[AirForceBlue]

Your words sound familiar..­.....oh, yeah, you sound just like Coulter & Limbaugh who also use mockery to make an empty point.

[zendem1]

The new GOP talking point word is "socialism". Most can't define it, even more can't spell yet, yet they all repeat it.

[tcagle]

When the war on media dipshits starts, draft me.

[zendem1]

LOL

[rbenjamin]

Funny stuff. Wallace's refusal to deviate from his war on terror angle reads like Steven Colbert newsman satire.