The Motivation for GSAVE
Cross-posted at TPMCafe – please go there and click the “Recommend” button 
Matt Yglesias was mystified by the name change of the Global War on Terror to the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). The motivation for the name change is the 2006 midterm elections. With popular support for Bush’s handling of terrorism and the Iraq war on the wane, the White House recognizes that maintaining the status quo could very well lead to Republican loses in 2006. So Bush’s objective is to make, or at least announce, significant troop reductions in Iraq by next summer’s election season.
The White House’s public pronouncements aside, they know it’s very unlikely that the situation in Iraq will significantly improve by then. So the question they’ve been asking themselves is: how do we start bringing troops home even though Iraq is still very unstable, and not have it look like a defeat? The answer is to reframe public perceptions, and to start doing it now. If Iraq is the central front in the Global War on Terror and the troops leave before victory is achieved, then Bush and the Republicans look like failed wartime leaders. But if we are instead engaged in a long-term Global Struggle Against Violenet Extremism, then large numbers of boots on the ground is not the answer: it takes diplomacy, covert operations we can’t tell you about (but trust us, they’re working great), patience, and a holistic perspective that sees Iraq as just one aspect of the Global Struggle. The message will be that withdrawing the troops isn’t a sign of failure, it’s simply a sign that we’ve entered the next phase of the Global Struggle.
The fact that a lot of this is awfully similar to what they excoriated John Kerry for advocating is not seen as particularly relevant by the White House political strategists. The media has let them get away with blatant hypocrisy before, so they feel no compunction about doing it again. This seemingly odd name change is the first step in a communication strategy that will unfold over the course of the next year.
“…large numbers of boots on the ground is not the answer…”
I don’t know if I agree with this.
“Hence, though an obstinate fight may be made by a small force, in the end it must be captured by the larger force.” – Sun Tzu
The Art of War was one of several titles of required reading for all enlisted men in the Marines.
Hi Anthony – thanks for taking the time to read and respond. I must not have written my comment clearly, as you have misunderstood my point. In the section you quoted I was attempting to describe the recent change in the Pentagon’s thinking. I was not describing my position. My position is that it was poor judgement to go into Iraq. It is also my position that, given that we went in, we should have gone in massively, with between 300,000 and 400,000 troops, just as General Shinseki suggested before the war started (but unfortunately Rumsfeld rejected that number as “way off the mark”). Every occupation this century demonstrates that you need a certain ratio of occupying troops to local population to maintain order. Every time an occupier has tried to do it with less troops, as we have in Iraq, there is greater loss of life and more instability. I can point you to a study that documents this if you’d like to know more. The short answer is yes, Sun Tzu is right.
Rumsfeld actually initially wanted to attempt the invasion and occupation with only 60,000 troops, and he fought tooth and nail to keep the number of troops as low as possible. It’s Rumsfeld who needs to brush up on Sun Tzu, not me.