This isn’t about politics or marketing. It’s about the consequences of language choices. The media recently reported that the Obama administration has stopped using the phrase “global war on terror” — which has its roots in the Bush administration — and has substituted “overseas contingency operations.” Here’s the story from the Washington Post.

“War on terror” as a positioning phrase does its job: it conjures up military action against people who intend to violently terrorize our country. The phrase evokes a visceral and visual reaction, exactly its intention. Never mind that ‘terror’ is a tactic and not an enemy. Never mind that ‘war’ carries a sense of executive powers that may not be a good idea. The language serves its purpose effectively.

On the other hand, what does “overseas contingency operations” conjure up? It’s an empty phrase, a three-noun string of jargon. Beauracratic. I’d expect to hear it from a corporation. It could mean a thousands things, and so it means nothing.

‘Contingency’ is the puzzling word here. The intended meaning is ”a possibility that must be prepared for.” You have to take into account that terrorist attacks are possible and therefore you must do something to prevent them. That makes sense. But how do you derive “overseas contingency operations” from that? And what happens when operations are required that aren’t overseas? ‘Provincial contingency operations’?

Here’s a language choice with clear meaning: President Obama, quoted recently in the New York Times, speaking about membership into NATO:

“The door to membership will remain open for other countries that meet NATO’s standards and can make a meaningful contribution to allied security,” Mr. Obama said.

The word ”standards” and the phrase “meaningful contribution” are open to interpretation and negotiation, but the quote basically sums up what the President believes membership in NATO is all about.