There’s plenty of hoo-haa about David Miliband’s “‘War on Terror’ was wrong” article in the Guardian today. But, truth be told, it’s probably less significant than it first appears. You see, Miliband the Elder is talking rhetoric – he’s simply saying that the phrase ‘War on Terror’ was the wrong one to use because of what it implies; because it panders to unnuanced “us and them” thinking; because it suggests that the only solution is a military one. In a week that George Bush admitted some of his rhetoric “has been a mistake”, that sounds fairly uncontroversial to me.
Fact is, whatever name it’s given, Western strategy is increasingly premised on recognising the nuances of the situation and the opportunities for non-military action. To some extent, it’s that “smart power” that Hillary Clinton mentioned the other day, and it’s encapsulated in the activity surrounding the surge in Iraq. Yes, there have been increased troop numbers – but that’s gone hand-in-hand with increased dialogue and cooperation with, among others, groups previously suspected of acting against Western forces.
So, Miliband’s calling less for a new strategic outlook and more for a new label. Given that he doesn’t suggest one himself, I guess he’s waiting to see what the Obama administration come up with.
Comments