ARTICLE: Message-Minded Admiral Ditches 'Long War' Phrase, By RICHARD LARDNER, The Tampa Tribune, Apr 19, 2007

To me, downshifting the language is a mistake. It's an attempt to seek short-term morale relief while appeasing the popular desire to not engage in long-term involvement in the region. To me, that was Abizaid being honest with the American public and casting the conflict in decades-long terms while avoiding the "global" moniker, which I always found hyperbolic.

There's always the impetus to change things when you assume command: it displays your decisiveness and makes your stamp. But the problem is that we need more consistency than course changes in this lengthy process, and the surest sign that the Americans are--once again--coming up with some new definition of grand strategy for this conflict is reaching for a new name.

I honestly think this just makes us look bad, like we're chasing the "strategic communications" victory more than anything else. Then again, it's the mass media nature of the coverage: there has to be a new tag line every couple of months.

But if I'm a local in the Gulf, this sounds like the Americans are no longer in this for the long haul, and so I start hedging even more. I wonder if that dynamic isn't more damaging than the PR-implications of the old phrase.

I guess what worries me most is the sense that the Bush administration, in okaying this shift, is basically abandoning the concept of a grand strategy for the region. I worry that it reflects the breakdown in coordination across the government and that it's now every slogan for itself.

But that may just be the pessimist in me after a red-eye.