Bush: You Did GWOT?

Really interesting piece by Larry Johnson and analysis by nadezhda on an important issue - what do we call all this flurry of action these days? GWOT? GWOE? GSAVE? Hey, this is really important stuff. We all thought that the Global War on Terrorism was a bad term, since 1) its use suggests a nearly total reliance on the military, and 2) it's hard to make war on a concept. Thus the suggestion that the federal government all pitch in on a Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism, which was better than the Global War on Extremism. Hold the phone, though.

Stop the presses. WOT--the War on Terrorism may still be alive. The counter terrorism community is abuzz over the President's comments yesterday at a principals meeting of the Homeland Security Council. Bush reportedly said he was not in favor of the new term, Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). In fact, he said, "no one checked with me". That comment brought an uncomfortable silence to the assembled group of pooh bahs. The President insisted it was still a war as far as he is concerned.

I can visualize Chertoff leaning over to whisper to Rumsfeld, "I thought you said the boss would agree to this..." Rumsfeld whispers back, "Am I surprised? Yes! Is this a setback? Not at all."

Nadezhda points out the important policy aspects of this miscommunication at the White House. This isn't just a disagreement in terms, it's a struggle between politics and policy implementation. While the various government agencies (State, Defense, Justice, Homeland Security) are all trying to work out a long-term, coordinated strategy that takes into account all terrorism, not just the struggle in Iraq, Bush is keenly aware of the need to keep public attention on (and support for) military operations in Iraq. Any slip away from military operations might mean public support slipping as well.

As Hoagland reported in his first piece on the GWOE, the internal discussions about retiring "GWOT" from official discourse began some time ago, at the instigation of the military. And from the marked change in vocabulary since January by leading figures of the Admin -- including Bush -- it would certainly appear that this has been a matter of concern at the highest levels, not simply a topic of debate among a bunch of bureaucrats.

Senior officials have had good reason for concern. The American public has become more antsy about Iraq, and the Bush Admin's "credibility gap" on Iraq -- that gap between claims of progress and on-the-ground reality -- has become a canyon. When the disconnect between evolving policy and political rhetoric gets too large for any Admin, there will be problems with three key audiences: the general public (to the extent the credibility gap becomes increasingly evident in negative nightly news); the staff of the executive branch who are supposed to implement policy (whether civil service or members of the military); and the rest of the world, both other countries and public opinion.

What the folks who developed the GSAVE overlooked, however, was that when things get bad for the White House, there's a fourth audience that's more important than the other three. And that audience isn't troubled by cognitive dissonance or the "credibility gap." Rather than try to close the gap by sketching out shifts in US strategy and policy both globally and in Iraq, Bush's recent speeches and remarks are going whole hog in the other direction, re-connecting Iraq to the GWOT not only today (the jihadis are trying to kill US forces in Iraq) but from the outset with the 9/11-Iraq canard. At the same time, other parts of the Admin -- both Rice and Rumsfeld and his generals -- are spelling out the evolving GSAVE strategy within the context of specific policies.

Bush's recent revival of the GWOT in the context of Iraq is an implicit acknowledgment that the "war on terror" is critical to shoring up a key part of the support he received last November. Without the GWOT, Bush becomes much more vulnerable when attempting to justify his previous policies. His posture as the "war" President is also essential to continuing to claim unprecedented executive powers and maintaining the "king can do no wrong" approach that is embraced by his ardent fans.

I think nadezhda's hit the nail on the head here, and is right on when he warns us to prepare for continued rhetoric about the GWOT when the federal agencies are all working on the GSAVE. Because retaining/stopping the slide of public support for this administration is just as important as, if not more important than, actual results. Rule #1 of public policy - it doesn't have to make sense.

Comments

[CKR]

Nice post from Nadezhda!

I think you've excerpted the central part. To put it more cynically, this is just one more tool in Bush's rhetorical toolbox. GSAVE (or whatever) when he needs to convince the middle he's doing something other than brandishing military might, and GWOT for those who love war.

And I'm wondering if GSAVE includes violent extremists in America (you know, those guys hoarding explosives to blow up abortion clinics and Social Security offices)? No mention of that so far...

[dK]

I can visualize Chertoff leaning over to whisper to Rumsfeld, "I thought you said the boss would agree to this..." Rumsfeld whispers back, "Am I surprised? Yes! Is this a setback? Not at all."

Excellent treatment of a dead serious issue. Still, I found myself laughing at your characterization above. I'm sooo convinced that probably happened verbatim as you postulated...