Summarizing this Alternet article.
War On Terror
- War was the appropriate means to stop terrorists (Iraq War was justified as a response to 9/11)
Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism
- justifies going into any country anytime
- does not evoke war frame
- does not imply an end
- may not have a victory – vague mission
- dropping war takes the blame for failure away from the war policy, $200 billion and thousands of lives
- if they’re violent, it justifies using violence against them
- expect the US to use violence
No longer associate the Iraq War with terrorism
Not see the failure in Iraq as a failure to curb terrorism
Troops can be brought home before the midterm elections without the implication that the administration is giving up on stopping terrorism
There is still a war going on
You can’t end a war just by stopping the use of the word
Admitting that war won’t stop terrorism and that the war in Iraq had no justification
If this is not a "war," does the president still have the war powers given him by Congress?
Karl Rove: "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war."
- applies both abroad and at home
- set up for the suppression of opposition at home