Jargon Watch: “Long War” Goes the Way of GWOT

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.


Man, if only the Pentagon put as much effort into winning the war as it does into rebranding its losing efforts.

Remember when
GWOT (Global War On Terrorism) became GSAVE (Global War on Violent Extremism). Well, at least that’s what Donald Rumsfeld proposed back in 2005. Evidently, even Bush thought this was stupid.

As for the “long war”—this one was coined by Gen. John P. Abizaid before he retired as head of the Central Command. According to the NYT, “it was intended to signal to the American public that the country was involved in a lengthy struggle that went well beyond the war in Iraq and was political as well as military.”

Except, whoops, folks in the Middle East took it to mean that they’d be occupied for a long time. The Times also notes that U.S. officials seem to be using the phrases “Islamic fascism” and “jihadist” less regularly, as they seem to have offended Muslims worldwide, and even helped recruit folks to fight us. (D’oh!) The Pentagon has also dropped “Salafist Extremist Network,” presumably because only Juan Cole knew what it meant.

“We continue to look for other options to characterize the scope of current operations,” said a Pentagon spokesperson.

SNAFU? Vietnam II? Hundred Years War?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest