As reported by WashingtonPost, Bush Identifies Turkey as New Front in War on Terror .

My question is: why do we (and by we, I mean they) insist on describing the “battleground” of this “war on terror” using completely outmoded language?

For example:

“I told him our prayers are with his people. I told him that we will work with him to defeat terror, and that the terrorists have decided to use Turkey as a front,” Bush said. Asked whether Turkey was a new front, Bush said: “It sure is. Two major explosions. And Iraq is a front, Turkey is a front, anywhere the terrorists think they can strike is a front.”

Clearly the term “front” is just silly in this case. The whole point of terrorism/guerrilla warfare is that you penetrate, circumnavigate, or simply avoid the front. You take the fight behind the lines, or into other territories to draw action off of the front (where smaller armies, you know, tend to get beat up). I mean, I’m not particularly astute when it comes to military history, but even I understand the basic gist of this idea. All ethics regarding warfare (in general and particular) aside here, aren’t we just begging to get our ass kicked with this mentality?

Seriously. Can we (and by we, I mean they) please find a better strategy than one would use in Wack-A-Mole? Even the 3 Stooges understood the subtle art of misdirection. Hey Moe – whoowhoowhoo whoo!


2 Responses to Hey Moe!

  1. Hmmm. How language twists. On first reading the headline I thought the US President was warning about attacks on the food supply.

  2. Jason says:

    News, appropriate to the season. And probably more sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.