Roguely Stated

During his visit to Singapore this weekend, Secretary Gates mentioned – in passing – that “it’s too soon” to say whether the U.S. is winning the global war on terror (GWOT). Never mind that President Bush effectively coined the term over five years ago, in the days immediately following the 9/11 attacks. Never mind that in FY2006 alone, the president requested over $70 billion in order to fight said war on terror. Never mind Iraq. Gates is right. It’s too soon. It’s always going to be too soon. A boundless war can never be measured.

That’s the beauty of the term “global war on terror”, and the reason for its recent condemnation by Presidential hopeful John Edwards. By placing a random assortment of policy concerns within the “war on terror” rhetorical box, the administration shields itself from any sort of systematic performance measurement and frees itself from a realistic timeline for success – or even progress. And according to the SecDef, we may or may not be any safer.

The White House’s response to Edwards epitomizes just how nebulous the “war on terror” concept has become (or perhaps always was). Effective policy demands measurement, benchmarks, timetables, goals and clarity. Without those things, a fancy title like GWOT is little more than a politician’s tool.