Repetition of buzz-words and key phrases

are key to any successful propaganda campaign,

and as these ideas bounce around

the mass-media echo chamber,

it is impossible to avoid them becoming

a part of our shared language and pool of ideas

At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina,

moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates:

"Show of hands question: Do you believe

there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up

After hesitating noticeably,

Senator Barack Obama joined her

Edwards did not, saying later that he will

no longer use what he views as

"a Bush-created political phrase

Bush and his gang have used it to justify

anything they want to do"

In their propaganda today's dictators rely for the most part on repetition, suppression and rationalization - the repetition of catchwords which they wish to be accepted as true, the suppression of facts which they wish to be ignored, the arousal and rationalization of passions which may be used in the interests of the Party or the State. - Aldous Huxley, Propaganda in a Democratic Society

How many times you might have encountered the phrases "war on terror", "Islamo-Fascist", "IED", "9/11", "ground zero" and "weapons of mass destruction" in the space of your life.

Repetition of buzz-words and key phrases are key to any successful propaganda campaign, and as these ideas bounce around the mass-media echo chamber, it is impossible to avoid them becoming a part of our shared language and pool of ideas.

But what happens when the propaganda and spin gain such power and traction that the actions of our political leaders spiral out of control?

The answer is what the military calls 'incestuous amplification', a condition in warfare where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set beliefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation.

It is easy to see how the build-up to the Iraq war fiasco, and the aftermath still being played out, can be attributed to the victory of spin and propagandist practices on the part of the mass media, bouncing the same ideas around time and time again until their veracity almost becomes an irrelevant aside.

'The War on Terror' is itself a 'glittering generality' so vague in its outlines as to justify a continuous state of war, ad infinitum.

Bush goes on record as saying:

"Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

The beauty of the idea is that once one enemy has been defeated, they can quickly be swapped for the next.

And while going to war with nations is a rather more concrete affair, going to war with 'insurgents' is significantly harder to pin down, or track by means of statistics for that matter.

Nevertheless, the War on Terror is a very effective means to justify more concrete acts of aggression.

G-WOT: The Global War on Terror

Campaign-hardened Republicans used to treat the phrase "global war on terror" so casually, even affectionately, that they talked about "the G-WOT," after the four-letter abbreviation used in White House calendars to denote Iraq messaging meetings.

Democrats embraced it, too, with John Kerry asserting during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention: "We are a nation at war, a global war on terror."

But increasingly the phrase is being regarded with hostility by many Democrats, who view it as little more than propaganda, and with a degree of skepticism by some Republicans, who consider it tired and vague.

The left lobe of the blogosphere roared its approval in March when the House Budget Committee directed its staff to eschew "global war on terror" and instead use more precise language like "the war in Iraq" and "ongoing military operations throughout the world." And last month the British government announced that it too had retired the phrase.

Now Kerry's former running mate is declaring his independence from a phrase that politicians have been brandishing with brio for more than five years.

At last month's Democrat debate in South Carolina, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show of hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?"

Senator Hillary Clinton's hand shot up. After hesitating noticeably, Senator Barack Obama joined her.

Edwards did not, even though he has used the phrase himself and a policy paper on his Web site refers to "winning the war on terror."

And now, in his first interview to explain his turnabout, Edwards said that he will no longer use what he views as "a Bush-created political phrase."

"This political language has created a frame that is not accurate and that Bush and his gang have used to justify anything they want to do.

"It's been used to justify a whole series of things that are not justifiable, ranging from the war in Iraq, to torture, to violation of the civil liberties of Americans, to illegal spying on Americans.

"Anyone who speaks out against these things is treated as unpatriotic. I also think it suggests that there's a fixed enemy that we can defeat with just a military campaign. I just don't think that's true."

Edwards, previewing the foreign policy he will unveil in coming weeks, made it clear that his objections to Bush's world view are not merely semantic.

Indeed, the Edwards foreign policy will be built around a rejection of the Bush doctrine, which puts a primary emphasis on the projection of American military power.

"Americans are completely prepared for, and receptive to, an alternative approach," Edwards said. "I don't think they would accept an approach that did not include a component of strength. Our capacity to lead requires that we be strong - and that we have the moral authority to do it."

The "Bush doctrine" originally referred to the President's insistence that those who harbor or aid terrorists will be treated like terrorists themselves.

It now includes two additional elements: preemption, which calls for confronting the worst threats before they emerge; and Bush's "freedom agenda," which argues for nurturing democratic institutions within the Middle East as a way to deal with terrorism at its root.

"What they have proven beyond any doubt is that the exercise of raw power does not make you a leader," Edwards said.

He stated he doesn't know why the other top-tier Democrats didn't join him in boycotting GWOT, but added:

"My conjecture is that they've used the term so many times themselves that they would be concerned about saying that they reject it now.

"And they're also concerned about the political implications. I'm going to say the truth, and that's it." Mike Allen @ Politco