British shed 'war on terror' language
The term is considered too simplistic, and perhaps supportive of jihadist goals.
By Mark Rice-Oxley | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Page 1 of 2
A new direction? In New York Monday, British MP Hilary Benn criticized the US-coined term, 'war on terror.'
Daniel Berehulak/Getty ImagesLONDON - Britain is rapidly backpedaling on the "war on terror." Not the global effort to subdue jihadists, but the three-word phrase, much used by President Bush, which in the British establishiment now fear is ill-defined, oversimplistic, and excessively martial and Manichaean.
Government ministers were quietly instructed several weeks ago to avoid using the term, but matters were brought into the open Monday when a senior cabinet minister rejected the phrase during a speech in America.
Hilary Benn, the Blair government's international development secretary, told a New York think tank that the concept of a war on terror sends out the wrong message on two levels: It encourages terrorists by dignifying their cause, and it suggests that only military measures could be a useful response.
The term is considered too simplistic, and perhaps supportive of jihadist goals.
By Mark Rice-Oxley | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor
Page 1 of 2
A new direction? In New York Monday, British MP Hilary Benn criticized the US-coined term, 'war on terror.'
Daniel Berehulak/Getty ImagesLONDON - Britain is rapidly backpedaling on the "war on terror." Not the global effort to subdue jihadists, but the three-word phrase, much used by President Bush, which in the British establishiment now fear is ill-defined, oversimplistic, and excessively martial and Manichaean.
Government ministers were quietly instructed several weeks ago to avoid using the term, but matters were brought into the open Monday when a senior cabinet minister rejected the phrase during a speech in America.
Hilary Benn, the Blair government's international development secretary, told a New York think tank that the concept of a war on terror sends out the wrong message on two levels: It encourages terrorists by dignifying their cause, and it suggests that only military measures could be a useful response.
Comments