Student Publications
University of Houston
151C Communications Bldg
Houston, TX 77204-4015
713.743.5350

©1991-2007
Student Publications,
All rights reserved.

Last modified:

Contact:
ktruitt@uh.edu

Opinion

Britain correct in its war on term

Reid Midgett
Opinion Columnist

The term "war on terror" once had an important effect on the world. Following the 9/11 attacks, the concept of terrorism was made clear to every person in the United States, whether they were in New York experiencing the tragedy firsthand or anywhere else in the country silently watching it on television. 

In an act of leadership and responsibility, President Bush spoke to his country and vowed revenge on the terrorists who broke our sense of security from the once relatively distant horrors of terrorism. 

He spoke of a war on terror to eradicate all forms of terrorism in the homeland and elsewhere.

The country rallied behind him. They made the term "war on terror" a common phrase, speaking of their country's mission and their wish to exact vengence on those who assaulted America.

Other countries joined in. They voiced their disgust with those terrorists and wished to provide help to stop them. They too joined the war on terror.

Years later, the world is getting tired of this war and the terminology used to define it.

The British government recently decided to stop using the term "war on terror." Britain's International Development Secretary Hilary Benn said the term empowers terrorists by making them feel part of a bigger struggle.

She also said these terrorists are not one group; they are many distinct groups united only by their "distorted view of the world" and nothing else.

The war on terror is an outdated term. The focus on extreme terrorism and acts of horrifying violence shifted a long time ago to the president's own distorted view of the world and its inhabitants. As support for this war of all wars to spread democracy and end terrorism dwindled, the emphasis on the evils of America's opponents strengthened.

Yet it seems the once-true and once-pure motive of eradicating terrorism has been lost in the shuffle. A victory in this war is no longer about the war on terrorism but the war on criticism and doubt. 

If Bush wins this war, he may have a chance to gain back his dignity and his allies. Doubts will be washed away about the president's abilities, and all will go back to what it was before 9/11 and before terrorism invaded this country.

Yet that is not going to happen. Tyranny and oppression have been present since the beginnings of civilization. The United States only realized this when terrorism finally reached its shores.

Britain has made a bold and smart move in its refusal to use the term "war on terror" any longer. Violence and military action will not fix the mistakes of this war and its aftermath. 

Saying that it is a war only gives the various terrorist groups what they want: a chaotic battle between ideologies and politics. 

This is no longer a war on terror. It is a war on everything that contradicts what the United States represents -- except nobody really knows what that is supposed to be anymore.

Midgett, a communication junior, 
can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu