Obama Dumps the Phrase "Global War on Terror" (GWOT)

The Obama Administration is thankfully retiring the term "Global War on Terror" to describe the U.S.'s, uh, what was it used to describe again?

This was always the first problem with this misbegotten phrase -- that it sounded all puffy and strong but it was about as strong as a souffle -- that is, easily popped. Because "terror" is a common noun, like "poverty" or "unhappiness." It's simply way too vague, which of course has been the problem since the U.S. began using its military to fight this "war." What does it mean to "win" this war? What forces are needed? Who do you fight when you fight "terror?"

The answers to these questions are still important and largely unanswered, but at least we aren't tied down by the phrase and its unfortunate acronym, GWOT. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said yesterday that the administration was no longer using the phrase.

Aside from my personal and political distaste for the term, I bring it up here in a PR blog because of the importance of  word choice and names. Labels are how we categorize things in our world, to fit them into a simple construct so that we can effectively communicate with each other. They are by nature both limiting and defining.

We as communicators have a powerful opportunity to set agendas and influence decisions when we choose words and name things. Don't take this power for granted. And when you need to change the subject or give people something new to think about, consider a name or wording change.