Linguistically at least it appears so.
And, hopefully, the real long war may be soon, too, with increasing pressure inside and outside the U.S.
The term Long War", previously called the Global War on Terror, has been used by President Bush and team to prepare American for a never-ending battle against “terrorism.”
Yet the term is being retired, it seems, at least (in a bit of foreshadowing of what may be to come) by the U.S. Central Command.
Gen. John P. Abizaid was the among the first to use it yet his successor, William J. Fallon "quietly retired the phrase," according to journalist Michael R. Gordon.
The change "is a product of our ongoing effort to use language that describes the conflict for our Western audience while understanding the cultural implications of how that language is construed in the Middle East," writes Lt. Col. Matthew McLaughlin, a spokesman for the command.
"The idea that we are going to be involved in a 'Long War,' at the current level of operations, is not likely and unhelpful." Will the White House follow the lead of Central Command?
Whoever most vividly characterizes a situation usually determines how other see it in their mind's eye, discuss it and eventually act on it. So this is a notable shift.
Timeless Quote for Today:
Cowardice asks the question - is it safe? Vanity asks the question - is it popular?
Expediency asks the question - is it political? But conscience asks the question - is it right?
There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, popular, or political; but because it is right.
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr
