Obama’s newspeak
As George Orwell so aptly illustrated in his sci-fi classic 1984, words matter. Direct and control the language people use and their minds will soon follow.
Barack Obama has long been keen to keep America’s mind off the threat of global terror. For the past month, the Obama administration has jettisoned the phrase “Global War on Terror” in favor of ”Global Contingency Operation.”
Somehow — and it’s not clear how — this language preference has trickled down to the Pentagon, so that now not even warfighters are supposed to call the terror war what it is. Fox News reports:
The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase “Global War on Terror,” a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department’s office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”.
A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, from whom the direction reportedly came, told the Post there was no guidance given from the agency and that it was merely the “opinion of a career civil servant.”
A Pentagon spokesman said there was no memo or specific directive instructing officials to stop using the ‘Global War on Terror’ phrase but acknowledged that the department has officially adopted ‘Overseas Contingency Operation’ as the new term for the war.
WORLD’s Emily Belz yesterday reported on Obama’s newspeak:
Obama administration rhetorical alternatives are misleading, said Cully Stimson, who served in the Pentagon during the Bush administration. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano refused to use the word “terrorism” in her testimony to Congress, saying instead “man-caused disasters.” Democrats often say global warming is a “man-caused disaster,” Stimson pointed out.
“I would expect that she would not use that silly expression to a family member who suffered the loss of a loved one to an IED explosion,” Stimson said. “Terrorists are terrorists.”
The softening of terminology, he added, fits with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s “soft power” strategy, which emphasizes diplomacy more than the previous administration did. At the end of the day, Stimson said, “you can call it cherry pie, but it’s a war.”
In my long experience with government employment, career civil servants, especially Pentagon workers, are not prone to issue dictates, particularly in the name of the president, without a corroborating stack of CYA memos.
It will be interesting to see whether the Obama administration corrects the opinion of this “career civil servant” — or whether the civil servant was acting on a not-so-subtle “suggestion” from on high.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top34 Comments to “Obama’s newspeak”
People’s Republic of China
Gentlemen’s Club
Cuban President Castro
And my favorite “One great big happy family”
Report comment to moderator
And a university Diversity Coorinator?
That’s the (often highly-paid) person tasked with enforcing the unchallengeable party line of academic liberalism and race-based grievance politics.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s another one: Students for a Democratic Society, the chief fomenter of 1960’s student radicalism.
Report comment to moderator
“opinion of a career civil servant.”
Is that another name for “president”?
Report comment to moderator
#3 How ironic was that!!? Today there are all sorts of great reforms out there with the laudible goal of returning POWER TO THE PEOPLE. Best among these are the great effort to get more issues decided at the polls by means of voter initiatives and referenda. And the same SDS crowd most often opposes letting avg citizens have a say in what the laws will be. Meanwhile, if judges overturn anything voters approve at the polls the grey-haired SDS’ers celebrate it!
Report comment to moderator
“Orwell’s most famous book, 1984 is a warning about a futuristic totalitarian government that controls the public by spreading propaganda, monitoring citizens, changing language and rewriting history. In 1984 Oceania is in perpetual war. The enemy may regularly change but the state is always at war. And there seems to be no end.”
Sounds like exactly what the Bushies did.
I always thought “Global War on Terror” sounded like we were at war with an emotion. Good riddance.
Report comment to moderator
At the end of the day, Stimson said, “you can call it cherry pie, but it’s a war.”
This is all well and good, but OBE by those intent on creating their own reality, such are hopenchangers.
Report comment to moderator
Some people use words with their usual meaning to communicate facts and ideas. Other people use words with other than their usual meanings to hide facts and ideas. Our culture is plagued with words that have lost their genuine meanings. Too many people desire to manipulate rather than to communicate.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right, they should call it what it is–a war against Islamic fundamentalism. But Bush’s term is better than Obama’s. I don’t even know what Overseas Contingency Operation means.
Report comment to moderator
Bush said we had to invade Iraq to keep the peace, which is about as Orwellian as it gets (War is peace).
Then there was the “terrorist surveillance program (Big Brother is watching), and the “Healthy Forest Initiative” to open old growth forest to loggers, and the “Clear Sky Proposal” that allowed a dramatic increase in NOx and SO2 emissions. Torture became “enhanced interrogation methods” and invading and occupying countries became “spreading freedom”. The examples go on and on. The Heritage Foundation is a Newspeak mill for the Republican Party
The rank hypocrisy of Republicans never ceases to amaze me. They must assume liberals have poor memories and that conservatives will fall in line with the latest smear no matter how ridiculous it is.
All you have to do is watch Glenn Beck go on and on about how the Nazis where socialists just like Obama to know newspeak is alive and well in the conservative movement (for my conservative friends, the Nazis where fascists (like Bush)).
Report comment to moderator
Some of the Bush Administrations greatest hits:
The Fundamentals of the Economy are Sound: we’re broke
Clear Skies Initiative: weakened pollution regulations
Healthy Forests Initiative: cut large trees and leave kindling
No Child Left Behind: left the kids behind
Enhanced Interrogation Techniques: torture
War on Terror: unilateral preemptive war
Patriot Act: trash the Constitution
Remember Rummy’s The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism?
Report comment to moderator
Why change the words when you can control the media:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/26/critics-say-senate-invite-government-control-news/
Report comment to moderator
Even Dinesh D’Souza said that the language of “War on Terror” was foolish. He said, “I don’t think we’re fighting a war against terrorism any more than in World War II America was fighting a war against kamikaze-ism.” While “Overseas Contingency Operation” doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of meaning, neither did “War on Terror.”
Report comment to moderator
I’ve rewritten my response to this post 3 times, so no flowery language here. Here is the deal:
Bush and his administration are the reason why the GWOT term is being retired. He made that term so much of his presidency that it suffered the same bad approval ratings he did. Bush used the term to manipulate the public and global events. He chose it strategically to give cover to him and his operatives as they ransacked the constitution, ruined the economy, and lead the country into two disastrous wars.
Bottom line: Conservatism is in the can, and you can’t be so completely rejected by the American public as the neo-conservatives have been, and still expect to get to pick the vocabulary and define the terms.
The death of the term “Global War on Terror” is an apt metaphor for the decline of the Republican Party. As you watch language change around you, know that it is for one reason: YOU ARE OUT OF POWER and no one knows when you will get it back, or what you will have to sacrifice.
Report comment to moderator
#3 Lynn,
The SDS burned down the building that housed the Silo Tech Marching Band uniforms and instruments. I guess they thought that this marching music was military in nature somehow and it was symbolic of Americans killing Vietnamese during the Vietnam War …..eeeerrr…..I mean illegal police action against the innocent poor poor Marxists of North Vietnam who invaded the south for some insane reason that only made sense to the whacked out lefties of the day. These same whack jobs ended up in the Carter, Clinton, and Obama administrations and now they try to burn down and destroy the entire country (and the free world for that matter) for the same ideology that only makes sense to the pathologically and criminally insane.
Report comment to moderator
“Too many people desire to manipulate rather than to communicate.”
While this is certainly a poetic sounding phrase. It’s completely meaningless.
Communication cannot be separated from manipulation. I suggest that rather than point vague fingers at ghosts you don’t understand, you should think more carefully about communication.
You can start with your own response. I would say that in its deliberate attempt to say nothing and communicate only ominous suspicion at the “they” of your imagination, it is utterly manipulative.
Report comment to moderator
NJL #12
So tell me….
When are the liberals going to start decrying the constitutional rights violations going on in the good old US of A?
Or are they just selective for conservative violations when it comes down to it?
Report comment to moderator
MyNock #16
You seem to have gotten a lot out of a “completely meaningless” phrase. I think you quite clearly reveal your own communication motives and skills.
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been watching Obama spin a whole new Newpseak language right before our eyes. Here are the old words and what Obama replaced them with:
Recession => Recovery
Enemy Combatant => Detainee
Paying more taxes => Patriotism
War on Terror => Global Contingency Operation
Wasteful spending => Investing
Increasing Debt => Decreasing Debt
Financial Success => Greed
Terrorist => Freedom Fighter
Terrorist Attack => Man made disaster
Earmark => Not an earmark
Getting paid by the government => Creating jobs
Ignoring the border => Protecting the border
Ruining the economy => Saving the economy.
Report comment to moderator
MIM, I’m thinkin’ their selective. Always were.
And in answer to Mynock’s “no one knows when you will get it back, or what you will have to sacrifice,” I’m thinking less than two years and not all that much considering that the electorate won’t have anything left.
So, maybe the Chinese and the Russians will get their way and a new currency instead of the dollar will be the controlling one. We’ll see.
If only they would just fix the housing problem and take a measured approach to spending …..
But instead we get Geithner asking for more power over corporations. This is getting to be very frightening.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry that should be “they’re” not “their” in the first sentence.
Report comment to moderator
Every administration that I know has engaged in some form of newspeak; I take it to be the curse of media politics. Of course, it is always in a log and speck sort of way to see the error of the other side. So in the interest of fairness, let me commend Orwell’s Politics and the English Language.
Here are two useful quotes from this essay:
Report comment to moderator
The “Global War on Terrorism” was a carefully calculated term by the conservatives. How do you know when a war like that is won? Well, you don’t. And that was their point. It put the United States into a war of perpetuity that would never have to be reauthorized by Congress. It justified the establishment of a permanent US presence in Iraq. But best of all, it enabled the conservatives to give no-bid military contracts to their buddies in the defense industry. In return, their buddies in the defense industry would donate millions of dollars to the Republican Party to keep them in power. It was a “win/win” situation for the conservatives and the defense industry. Thankfully the American people intervened in that little scheme.
And the conservative Christians love the GWOT because it fits right into their idea of a second Crusade against the Muslims.
Report comment to moderator
America voted for words, not experience. America got words, not experience. We got words and nothing more of constructive substance. Words & theories.
Report comment to moderator
“Sorry that should be “they’re” not “their” in the first sentence.”
Whew! NJL- I was worried Victoria’s distinctive ‘grammatical style’ had rubbed off on you!
Report comment to moderator
“The “Global War on Terrorism” was a carefully calculated term by the conservatives.”
Hmmm… yeah. prolly like “Pro-Choice” is a carefully calculated term for liberals.
Hate to break it to you Anlir, but conservatives don’t have a monopoly on carefully calculated terms…
Report comment to moderator
Who said they did Make it Man?
As for “pro-choice” and “anti-choice”, those are quite accurate descriptions of the two positions given the legal reality in this country. A woman has the right to choose.
Report comment to moderator
Orwell predicted the coming sad reality of the English language — its very flexibility is used against it.
Detainee and militant are neutral terms unlike illegal combatant, terrorist or conversely freedom fighter.
The Obama administration would be better off not to give the various the US is engaged in a generalized name. Instead they should term each conflict what it is — the Iraqi invasion, the stabilization of Afghanistan, police action or border patrol along the Afghan-Pakistani border, etc. Thus each separate conflict can have its own exit strategy.
Report comment to moderator
“pro-choice” and “anti-choice” are inadequate terms because they are overly vague. They could describe any issue involving a choice (I could be “pro-school-choice” yet “anti-abortion-choice”). Similarly, “pro-life” and “anti-life” could describe any issue involving life (I could be “pro-fetus-life” and yet “anti-convicted-serial-killer-life”). The most plain and logical terms are “pro-abortion” and “anti-abortion” because they reference the procedure in question.
“Pro-life” is preferred because being “anti” doesn’t poll well. “Pro-choice” is preferred precisely to avoid reminding folks of the procedure in question.
Report comment to moderator
‘1984′ was one of the saddest and gut-wrenching books I’ve ever read.
I wonder if Obama ever read it… he probably enjoyed it and got lots of good ideas for how to run a country.
Report comment to moderator
They have a whole list of words that if you use them they will smear you until they kill you. That is what these fools do. Just look what they do here? But llamas give it back to them in a way they know all too well and boy, do they get upset to no end that anyone would dare oppose their insane group thinking thoughts of nonsense.
Report comment to moderator
War on Terror was silly…but so is Global Contingency Operation.
I mean really…he’s got enough smart guys they can come up with something better.
I bet they pulled it off the new G.I. Joe movie…considering they are ruining that acronymn too..
Report comment to moderator
Even Andy Borowitz, one of my favorite funny liberals, noticed it:
http://borowitzreport.com/
Report comment to moderator
Jalex: that is too funny. Just after the election our family watched through the “Yes, Minister” and “Yes, Prime Minister” series. The parallels are remarkable and no less amusing, if not dangerous.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!