A rose by any other name is still a failure

Today had some confirmation hearings for Obama's cabinet picks. One of them was for Hillary Clinton. The NYT had various esteemed intellectuals write in some questions they would like to ask Hillary. MICHAEL SANDEL, a professor of government at Harvard, had some deeply insightful analysis:

1. Some say “war on terror” is a misnomer that has led our policy astray. They argue that terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or a cause, and that a war against it is bound to be ill focused and inconclusive. Do you think we should drop the term “war on terror,” and describe our policy more precisely as a war to defeat Al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism?

What a different world it would be if "war on terror" were called something else. Obviously the name has caused us to go astray! I'm sure Bush would have waged a much more intelligent and strategically strong war on X if the name was better. Maybe his suggestion, war to defeat Al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism, would have been better. On the other hand, maybe the addition of the word global would have helped. Perhaps 'global struggle against violent extremism' would have made the difference. Islamofascism maybe? It's hard to predict. Hopefully Obama and Hillary will pick a better name that will let them make more focused decisions.

On the subject of going astray, his 3rd question probed the ill effects of the Iraq war:

3. One of the most damaging legacies of the Iraq war is that it has given idealism and internationalism a bad name. How will you persuade the American people, and the world, that the United States can be a force for democracy and freedom? [force for peace excluded]

Yes, the most damaging legacy is the death of idealism and internationalism. What the fuck is internationalism, in the sense he is using it, and in what conceivable way did Iraq give it a bad name? If anything, Iraq is probably one of the more compelling arguments for "an appreciation for the diverse cultures in the world, and a desire for world peace" rather than one against it. If he meant the marxist interpretation, though he probably didn't, I don't see how it is even remotely related. I am glad someone finally asked this question since I have been struggling with one of my own. I have been trying to convince edgrimly for years now that the worst legacy of Vietnam is that it gave containment and cross-border bombing a bad name. How should I persuade him and the world that we can still defeat communism?