Subtle changes appear to be occurring in the language and tactics used by the US and UK governments in their so called “war on terror”. Tacit admission of strategic failure is leading to a new vocabulary of political rhetoric – but will this be reflected in a new, smarter, and legal approach to the many intractable challenges that were supposed to be addressed but were often caused or exacerbated by previous policy?
The “The ‘rebranding’ of the war on terror” is examined in a piece by Tom Regan,
while CBS thinks it might be more of a remake ‘War On Terror’ Remake?
and the Telegraph looks forward to the use of more nuanced language
Postings on two blogs also look into the changes.
Postman Patel, explores the major shift in the language of conflict while
The “war on terror” as a failed and abandoned strategy is discussed on LFCM