The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Archives

In the Loop

The End of the Global War on Terror

Updated 4:58 p.m. 3/24/09
By Al Kamen
The end of the Global War on Terror -- or at least the use of that phrase -- has been codified at the Pentagon. Reports that the phrase was being retired have been circulating for some time amongst senior administration officials, and this morning speechwriters and other staff were notified via this e-mail to use "Overseas Contingency Operation" instead.

"Recently, in a LtGen [John] Bergman, USMC, statement for the 25 March [congressional] hearing, OMB required that the following change be made before going to the Hill," Dave Riedel, of the Office of Security Review, wrote in an e-mail.

"OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use "Overseas Contingency Operation.'"

Riedel asked recipients to "Please pass on to your speech writers and try to catch this change before the statements make it to OMB."

An OMB spokesman took issue with the interpretation of OMB's wishes. "There was no memo, no guidance," said Kenneth Baer. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."

Referring to the phrase "global war on terror," Baer said, "I have no reason to believe that would be stricken" from Hill testimony.

By way of history, senior Bush administration officials several years ago wanted to stop using the phrase and switch to something many felt might better reflect the realities of the fight against international terrorism.

One leading option was to change the name to GSAVE, or Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. This was not as catchy an acronym as GWOT, but officials felt it more accurately described the battle.Then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld even used the GSAVE abbreviation publicly.

But, in a White House meeting, President Bush ruled that it was still a war for him, and Rumsfeld and everyone else went back to GWOT.

Posted at 4:08 PM ET on Mar 23, 2009  | Category:  In the Loop
Share This: Technorati talk bubble Technorati | Tag in Del.icio.us | Digg This
Previous: Obama Sits Down with '60 Minutes' | Next: Grading WhiteHouse.gov


Add 44 to Your Site
Be the first to know when there's a new installment of The Trail. This widget is easy to add to your Web site, and it will update every time there's a new entry on The Trail.
Get This Widget >>


Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



why, anyone who doesn't think 'terr-r' is important is just an anti Amurcan traitor, yer either with us or against us, mission accomplished, we need to run in fear of terr-r, terr-rists, and ter-rism every day, God bless George Bush for fightin' those terr-ists the libruls are in league with, just like they are all in league with the devil, George kept our country safe, blah blah blah dee blah bllluuuuahhh. Bush is a an ignorant, illiterate, con man, shame on anyone who voted for him. His sick, twisted, greedy, dishonest, over zealous, destructive, policies put America in the poor house, weakened our defenses and made us a mockery world wide. Thank You Hillary, Thank You President Obama, you are little by little restoring our dignity, sanity and intelligence, now let's get this economy humming once again like it was under Bill Clinton, the economic genius. Long live the Democrats!

Posted by: Hillary08 | March 31, 2009 5:29 AM

Has anyone done any research? The Rand study on "ending terrorism" concluded that military force is rarely successful. The solution is robust intelligence gathering, support and training of local police, and economic incentives. Once War is declared, there is a "psychological license" for abuses and rationalizing unethical behavior. We delared war on poverty and drugs and those haven't worked out either.

Posted by: mhiker | March 30, 2009 8:17 PM

"The crimes of 2001 should never have been answered by a war, not in Afghanistan and certainly not in Iraq. The proper response was that suggested by the French way back when, responsible and thorough police action. Both war zones are now the site of major American defeats, one consummated in Iraq, and the other in process in Afghanistan."

Wow! This comment absolutely puzzles me. What major American defeats are you referring to? I know it wasn't the one where Americans were again attacked on US soil.

Contingency can be defined as Plan B...so does this suggest we've abandoned Plan A? I think it might. I also think it's entirely possible that if we change the terminology to something less extreme as that awful word "war", then maybe Americans will again be happy and carefree without the thought of having an enemy. Contingency suggest everything is fine and we've just got an operation in place for IF something goes wrong.

For those of you who have a question in your mind whether or not something could go wrong, rest assured IT CAN (and for those of you who remember, IT HAS)! Don't let yourself for a minute think that there aren't those who our planning our death at this very moment...those that will not rest until we have been obliterated.

We've declared WAR on Terrorism! Let's see it through!

Posted by: extreme1 | March 29, 2009 12:54 AM

How about we just call it the " Why don't you just leave us alone" campaign?

Posted by: midsummer70 | March 28, 2009 10:50 PM

AZPaleocon:

At least my request for Obama's LONG FORM birth certificate does not involve some massive conspiracy theory ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 27, 2009 1:22 PM

Mafavon, Any "terrrr attack" on U.S. soil will be perpetrated by the U.S. government, just like the 9/11 attack was. Educate yourself: Study false-flag terrorism. 9/11 was a textbook example.

Posted by: AZPaleocon | March 25, 2009 10:31 PM

As a firefighter, I did not loose 343 of by brother firefighters in September 11th to a “Contingency Operation”. Those brave firefighters were killed in a terrorist attack. I hope the President's administration does not loose sight of that fact.

Posted by: rwsflbeck | March 25, 2009 10:17 PM

More descriptive for The Long War w/in context of political liberal anesthetized irrelevance would be the

Lingering Overseas Contingency Operations or

LOCO

Posted by: spartacus_1 | March 25, 2009 7:00 PM

It appears it will be necessary to change the names of the Global War Against Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and Global War Against Terrorism Service Medal issued to our troops and re-issue them. GWOT vs. OCO. The Overseas Contingency Operations Medals have a real ring to them. I would suggest planchets bearing a chicken on one side and a peace sign on the other. The ribbons should be different combinations of red and yellow with the initials of the author, BHO, on the rim. Thanks for the respect!

Posted by: rfpdx | March 25, 2009 1:42 PM

Perhaps when the terroists inside our boders strike, It will be said that it will be called Bush's War on terror that caused it!It is coming!!!!!!!!!!1

Posted by: mafavon | March 25, 2009 12:56 PM

I'll now refer to the Obama administration as "our leaders who have their heads in the sand."
----------------------------------------

Their heads are so far up their own ass, they will suffocate from lack of oxygen.

Posted by: pgcsny | March 25, 2009 11:47 AM

There so many inacuricies, I don't know where to begin. Sometimes it seems as if people just make up stuff to put on these comment logs. First of all. You do not have to serve in a declared war to receive the Purple Heart. If you are injured as a direct result of enemy action, then you are eligible (this includes terrorist action). Also, where is this info coming from about Flag Officers having to sign a non-disclosure agreement for the 2010 budget. Sure there are parts of the Budget that are classified for national security reasons, this did not begin with the Obama administration, it has been going on for decades. Also, these are top officials with very high security clearances and they don't have to sign agreements because they know what they can and cannot disclose to the public or the media. This is an informative article, but I hink that people are overreacting to the reasoning behind it. Right now we categorize Operatiion Iraqi Freedon (Iraq-OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan-OEF) under the GWOT. These are both contingency operations. Thats what all armed conflicts are called. That's because the U.S. Armed Forces conducts combat, support, security, and other missions in foreign theaters CONTIGENT upon the actions or threats of a foeign entity. There was never a declared war in Operations Desert Storm/Shield, Korea (known as the Korea war, but offically was the Korean Conflict). As to the effectivenes of police actions/prosecution vs EPW/military tribunals, there are advantages and disadvantages to both. The bottom line is the former administrations handling of many aspects of operations in Iraq and Afghanisan have left much to be desired and the new administration is trying to clean up a lot of the mess that was left by his predecessor. Changing the name may be just a way of saying that hey, there's a new sheriff in town and we are going t o things differently. Just don't put too much stock in a name.

Posted by: Bigmo472 | March 25, 2009 9:47 AM

my fave dem name change is merry christmas to happy holiday. hehe

Posted by: Totoro | March 25, 2009 7:49 AM

doliver40,

OMB is quite well known as the Office of Management and Budget. It's like CIA. It doesn't necessarily need to be spelled out.

Posted by: wftjet1 | March 25, 2009 7:47 AM

Why is anybody surprised?Democrats do this all the time.Liberal turned to proggressives ,global warming is now climate change ,Abortion is now pro choice a terrorist is now man caused disaster.Theres much more but you get the picture.Pretty soon Capitalism will be socialism.

Posted by: Totoro | March 25, 2009 7:43 AM

And when they Nuke Newyork???

Posted by: jackolantyrn356 | March 25, 2009 7:41 AM

ALRIGHT THE WAR ON TERROR IS OVER, THANK YOU OBAMA, IRAQ AND S. KOREA HAVE DISMATLED, PALESTINE WILL LEAVE ISRAEL ALONE, PULL ALL THE TROOPS FROM IRAQ AND AFGANISTAN, I MISSED ALL OF THIS, WHEN DID IT OCCUR, LAST NIGHT?

Posted by: padillaben | March 25, 2009 7:40 AM

Typical liberal mentality - what is good call evil, and what is evil call a victim of good.

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | March 25, 2009 7:24 AM

Perhaps Mr Obama should make the official announcement on the deck of aircraft carrier. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
Someone should tell the good new to Osama bin Ladin so he can come out of his cave.

Posted by: docfjs | March 25, 2009 2:37 AM

That's just great! Our wimpy, PC "leader" has just put a target on the back of every American on the planet! 2012 can't come soon enough........this idiot has to go!!

Posted by: priley8104 | March 25, 2009 1:37 AM

Here's a great article about this:


NAMES HAVE BEEN CHANGED TO PROTECT THE IGNORANT

LINK: http://www.americasright.com/2009/03/names-have-been-changed-to-protect.html


Here's a quote:

It makes sense because this administration's detente-at-all-costs approach to national security and foreign policy is dangerously rooted in political correctness and places the outward superficial perception of the United States of America ahead of the safety and security of the American people. While changing the name of the "Global War on Terror" to "Overseas Contingency Operation" may not in itself keep Americans like you and me safer, it is the perception of weakness and lack of commitment which strengthens the resolve and emboldens those who dream of our destruction. Rest assured -- while the American mainstream press may downplay such a terminological transition over the next day or two, these will be red-letter days in the caves and camps across the Middle East where terrorists are trained to carry out jihad.

It also makes sense because the Democrats on Capitol Hill realize the lack of substance to their superficial ideas, and can only resort to changing the name of floundering policies rather than actually working to solve the underlying problem in question. Nobody, for example, wants to buy "toxic assets" so Tim Geithner decides to change the name to "legacy assets." Rather than acknowledge the most dangerous threat to our national security, the very same ignorant woman who earlier this month said that violence in Mexico has yet to cross over the border into America--Homeland Security Director Janet Napolitano--sidelined the term "terrorism" in favor of "man-caused disaster." And of course, for years, Democrats have referred to "undocumented workers" instead of "illegal immigrants" as their laissez-faire approach to illegal immigration doesn't seem quite as palatable to an American public reminded that these people are, in fact, here illegally.

Posted by: CJBernard | March 25, 2009 1:36 AM

You newspapers and other media; I read it and compare it to books I've studied for years. Forgic=ve me, but this so looks like a slow moving Marxist take over. I can't put my finger on it all, but there's something awfully creepy about what he is saying. Sorry, I really want to like him, but there's just something that's crossgrain about him.

Posted by: jackolantyrn356 | March 25, 2009 1:32 AM

over there in Barrytown they do things very strange

Posted by: betterred2 | March 25, 2009 12:49 AM

Hey I need a job. Maybe I can be hired by the President to rename all of these terms that Presdent Bush came up with. I could be in charge of the Department Of Rename and hold a cabinet post as the Secretary of Rename.

Posted by: sr_munchero | March 25, 2009 12:19 AM

The Mullahs are grinning.

Posted by: johnhiggins1990 | March 25, 2009 12:14 AM

Oh, thank you dear savior! I feel so much safer now. THIS is the change I was looking for. Thank you blessed one! We are now free to go about our little meaningless lives!

Posted by: HD4lyf | March 25, 2009 12:01 AM

Al Kamen: In Journalism 101 we learn that except for a few universally recognized abbreviations, you should always spell out on first referrence. Even the Associated Press (AP) stylebook states that "in general, avoid alphabet soup. Do not use abbreviations or acronyms which the reader would not quickly recognize." So ... what the hell is OMB? It's somewhat crucial to your entire piece since it is quoted throughout. Sir, you either need to back to school, or find a decent editor if there is such a thing at the Post.

Posted by: doliver40 | March 24, 2009 11:49 PM

"Overseas Contingency Operation" ?
OCO

So --the Pink Ladies won the Whitehouse "Name That War" contest.

Yo. We're really on the right track!

3 yrs, 9 months, and a few wake-ups to go.

Posted by: chazz60 | March 24, 2009 11:38 PM

DrRob1 said: "I would speculate that most countries secretly applauded our actions, which took pressure off them, but now we will be challenged consistantly to see how we will respond under this administration.
"

You made some good points that I totally agree with.... like demonstrating that you are strong usually means you don't have to get into fights. Obviously you and I disagree about whether the adjustments the Obama adminstration has made means that we are not demonstrating that we are strong. I would argue that these changes are making us stronger... I suspect you don't see it that way.

Posted by: jake1492 | March 24, 2009 11:38 PM

JRM2, you might want to note that the 'success' at counter-terrorism you like to point to comes from the fact that there is no 4th Amendment in France. They can wiretap their citizens, break into their houses, surveil mosques and detain people without evidence.

If you want to win, maybe you ought to support not only the Constitutionally valid initiatives Bush enacted but a whole host of other efforts which are illegal in the U.S. in order to achieve your dreamed-of French 'success'.

And while you are at it, are you really going to celebrate our slide into French socialism in every other aspect of our government/economy? Do we really want permanent 10% unemployment in exchange for eliminating the creation of wealth? If so, why did we bother to revolt from England in the 1770s? We might as well have just let them put us into the EU and give up on American exceptionalism and our misguided 'Inalienable Rights' that those old dead white guys wrote in our founding documents.

Posted by: bpjam | March 24, 2009 11:07 PM

The bigger issue that Al Kamen needs to pursue is why were US Flag Officers asked to sign non-disclosure agreements on the FY2010 budget by the current staff at the White House???

When the DOD budget rolls out the American people will see the budget slashed and that puts our Nation at risk.

Posted by: Postde-subscriber | March 24, 2009 10:59 PM

The only thing making any of this nonsense even discussable is that it will be 15 months before the voters get a shot at Pelosi's street-walking prosties or the Senators who voted to blow $1.5T in the first 30 days of the Congress.

The backlash against this extremism will be politically violent (not physically violent, that only happens from the Left and the Unions) and sweeping. The Left lost their birthright to Congress when the House Bank and House Post Office came to light. The current Congress has made those two examples of corruption seem petty by comparison.

Term Limits are overdue. The permanent political class needs to end if America is going to survive. Look at the length of 'service' of the current committee chairmen as proof that 'experience' is virtually de facto proof of corruption.

Posted by: bpjam | March 24, 2009 10:55 PM

There is no reason to believe that the USA cannot be strong while being constructive. Those of you deadenders who seem to believe that the only way to be strong is to be defensive only and hold out no hope for building positive relationships are wrong. Your kind of frightenend brittle inward looking view of the world has been amply demonstrated to be counterproductive by the Bush adminstration.

Posted by: jake1492 | March 24, 2009 10:41 PM
------------------
Jake
Ever been in a bar fight and try to reason. The point is if you are strong, you typically do not get in fights. That doesn't mean you have to buy a round for the bar. But if you do not demonstrate you are willing to defend and take the necessary action, should you be called out, regardless of your perceived strength, it will be meaningless if you don not respond. I would speculate that most countries secretly applauded our actions, which took pressure off them, but now we will be challenged consistantly to see how we will respond under this administration.

Posted by: DrRob1 | March 24, 2009 10:50 PM

To jg2375,
You need to study your history. The French, while conducting a "police action' in Southeast Asia got their butts handed to them at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. And then they went home in defeat. The only way to win a war quickly is with overwhelming, superior firepower. Try reading the Art of War by Sun Tzu. You can't win a war against someone who wants you dead by making nicey nice. It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog. And right now, I think we have toothless Chihuahuas in charge.

Posted by: sportster99 | March 24, 2009 10:44 PM

The elections cannot come soon enough !
Congress - frightening. Presidential leadership lacking.. Even the MSM is starting to show cracks in its support..
Our children and grandchildren will suffer such budgetary bs projections. So glad to see similar comments, so little time.

That's why the Obaminator wants to act so quickly, before the rest of America wakes up to the socialist shenanigans going on.

Posted by: DrRob1 | March 24, 2009 10:41 PM

There is no reason to believe that the USA cannot be strong while being constructive. Those of you deadenders who seem to believe that the only way to be strong is to be defensive only and hold out no hope for building positive relationships are wrong. Your kind of frightenend brittle inward looking view of the world has been amply demonstrated to be counterproductive by the Bush adminstration.

Posted by: jake1492 | March 24, 2009 10:41 PM

You may them what you want, but you need to know that these people hate us, do not like our life style, and they want to do us harm.
You are endangering my family and my lifestyle. I hope we don't loose everything before 1 23 2013. It may be too late.

Posted by: kellycallies | March 24, 2009 10:30 PM

Gwot the hell is happening to this country !

Posted by: DrRob1 | March 24, 2009 10:29 PM

the problem is islam - and the muslim vermin that follow it. this virulent infestation of filth masquerading as a "religion" needs to be wiped from the face of the earth with extreme prejudice.

No islam, know peace.

Posted by: muslimsarevermin2008 | March 24, 2009 10:17 PM

It should not escape everyone that there's an element of insanity in the sentiments of the politically correct secular progressives. Implausibly, they reason that simply changing the name we use to refer to those coming to kill our loved ones and ourselves will somehow deter these people or convince them to adopt the values of the secular left in America. 3000 dead Americans on 911 isn't evidence enough that the best alternative to being murdered by an Islamo-fascist is a bullet in the headd for a terrorist instead of coming up with a cleverer euphemism for what he is?

Posted by: dryden01 | March 24, 2009 9:45 PM

Dear Lord in Heaven, you have got to be kidding me. When have we let these loons on the left turned us into a bunch of pansies. Let's call these murderous slime just that and stop trying to paint a pretty picture of these thugs lobing off the heads of those that don't share their beliefs. This is pathetic Mr. President, what a joke.

Posted by: pattieb | March 24, 2009 9:40 PM

Dear JakeD...my bad.

Posted by: MitchR | March 24, 2009 9:18 PM

Why not call murderous terrorists "friends we just haven't made yet."

How about calling those that have sworn to kill Americans "our grumpy neighbors."

I'll now refer to the Obama administration as "our leaders who have their heads in the sand."
----------------------------------------------------
We have to get REAGAN CONSERVATIVES in office to restore some strength and constitutional sanity to Washington!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-demand-true-conservative-leadership.html
----

Posted by: ensignbay | March 24, 2009 8:39 PM
-----------------
You made me laugh with your PC comment sarcasm but unfortunately, you made me cry due to these sorry times when we debate semantics rather than the facts and realities of this world gone awry! But thks for the chuckles..

Posted by: DrRob1 | March 24, 2009 9:16 PM

This is the moral equivalent of putting a "Kick me" sign on one's own back.

Posted by: smor2370 | March 24, 2009 9:15 PM

I think your site is being raided by right-wing nitwits. Their comments reveal no understanding of what is happening in the world and less common sense.

The crimes of 2001 should never have been answered by a war, not in Afghanistan and certainly not in Iraq. The proper response was that suggested by the French way back when, responsible and thorough police action. Both war zones are now the site of major American defeats, one consummated in Iraq, and the other in process in Afghanistan.

It isn't so important that Obama change the name of our foreign policy. Instead, he needs to concentrate on changing the policy, on abandoning the imperialist stance we have stupidly adopted since at least the 1960s. It is bankrupting us and killing our soldiers while it furthers our national interests not in the least.

Posted by: jg2375 | March 24, 2009 9:14 PM

This is typical liberal behavior. They think saying something makes it true and try to make things better by making them sound better. This is also another concession to terrorist nations, who by now have figured out we have a wimp for a president.

Posted by: LuKuj | March 24, 2009 9:08 PM

That was Observer44's post at 4:54 PM. No need to apologize ; )

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2009 9:05 PM

To JakeD, here it is:

"It merely glorifies their murderous conduct to pretend it is a "war", since, if we are at "war" with them (justifying almost any act, including homicide) then it follows that they are also at "war" with us (and morally entitled to the same sort of conduct against our entire society as it employs against them)...whatever is just and proper conduct for one participant in a war is at least arguably also just and proper for his adversary."

This is just hogwash. It's almost akin to saying a woman is asking to be raped because she's wearing a provocative outfit. The US military doesn't justify homicide. We rightly kill the enemies we are engaged with (barring illegal acts which should be punished appropriately). And, as I stated, the extremists are at war with us and have been for years. While the legal system is effective in some cases, we cannot arrest our way out of this problem. Law enforcement alone will not work. It has been a proven failure with the best case being 9/11.

Posted by: MitchR | March 24, 2009 8:58 PM

Lets see, SOHUHABHSIITS.. Stick Obama's head up his a** before he sticks it into the sand. You are going after thugs that killed US citizens, to kill them, before they kill you, that is a war. But I think the Obama administration would rather we try them all in the courts, give them free room and board for a few years, release them, and then supply a lawyer to sue the government because their muslim feelings were hurt because there wasn't an arrow in the cell pointing their asses toward mecca. I don't think those like Noel Berg would agree.

Posted by: sniper609 | March 24, 2009 8:48 PM

The citizens of this nation is not going to drop the global war on terror.

Posted by: bobojake | March 24, 2009 8:43 PM

1. We are at war with people who hate us and our way of life.
2. It didn't start on 911, that was the day they, the haters proved they can bring the war to the USA.
3. The haters are patient and will strike again when the opportunity presents itself.
4.The clinton administration conducted Police like action against the haters with warrants for there arrest, No haters turned themselves in or were brought to justice during this time. Cruz missils were sent and destroyed empty bases because we had to let our incompitent friends at the UN know we were going to conduct a police action against.
5.Their is one thing the haters understand, because they have been hating for hundreds of years and that is Pain! Not Constitutional rights reserved for Americans.
6.We hold the Constitution as our rule of law. This is also the very reason the haters want to kill us.
7.Let me be clear this is a war against Extreme elements of Islam who want us to Convert or die and no smart University type sitting in his ivery tower drinking lattes while the rest of us dye for this country. Liberal feel good poop is not going to stop a weapon of mass destruction from killing libs, conservatives etc....only a war on terror prosecuted with deadly blows from my brothers at arms up close and personal let them look into our eyes and see they started a war we as Americans have the Balls, and endurance to finish every last one of these bastards. After all they have showed no mercy..........to those whose heads were decapitated and put on U tube.

Posted by: kualoha12 | March 24, 2009 8:40 PM

Why not call murderous terrorists "friends we just haven't made yet."

How about calling those that have sworn to kill Americans "our grumpy neighbors."

I'll now refer to the Obama administration as "our leaders who have their heads in the sand."
----------------------------------------------------
We have to get REAGAN CONSERVATIVES in office to restore some strength and constitutional sanity to Washington!

http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/we-demand-true-conservative-leadership.html
----

Posted by: ensignbay | March 24, 2009 8:39 PM

"Pitty Pat" Official Pentagon correspondence is
now ordered to refer to any combat operations
anywhere in the world as "Pitty Pat" relations.
So now any troop operation in Iraq or Afghanistan
will henceforth be referred to by the White House
as a "Pitty Pat" negociation or relationship.
The troops in Iraq will now refer to anything that
they undertake as a "Pitty Pat" operation. Well,
folks, the liberal faschists that were elected
into office and the White House have now
commendeered the war on terror and will now
officially make love to all terrorists worldwide.
That is the government that majority Americans have now elected !!!!!

Posted by: omniscentone | March 24, 2009 8:28 PM

If the language can be transformed into a moving target, any efforts at intelligent communication can be thwarted. Orwellian in tactics, yet Biblical (read Tower of Babel) in results. And if the state can control the newspapers, the Fairness Doctrine dictate radio content . . .

Posted by: NCMike | March 24, 2009 8:23 PM

MitchR:

Which comment of mine makes you think I disagree with your otherwise correct position?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2009 8:14 PM

Aloha,

Observer44 stated that "Terrorists are just criminals, and are a fringe element even as thugs go; they have never been an existential threat to our society, but (on that scale) merely an annoyance, less of an actual threat than, say, drunk drivers."

I wouldn't call bin Laden a drunk driver or al Qaida/Hamas/Hizbulla or any Muslim Jihadist a fringe element. In reality the Muslim believes the whole earth is their domain and it is their duty to get all to submit to Allah or die in a less than human manner, e.g. Beheading, hanging, bullet in the head, etc. You are so naive.

Mahalo

Posted by: Warrior07 | March 24, 2009 8:14 PM

In the interest of transparency, a hallmark of this administration, the former War on Poverty, which has been waged since 1965, shall now be referred to as the Domestic Wealth Redistribution Black Hole.

Posted by: joanne600 | March 24, 2009 8:09 PM

Aloha,
You can't be awarded a Purple Heart for responding to a Overseas Contingency.

How does a wounded vet respond to a question about his/her disability? "I lost it in an Overseas Contingency responding to a Manmade Disaster?

Who is going to be this nations security force. The FBI, CIA, Dept of State are no match for he Dept of Defense.

Stand by for he big flash and thunderous report (Boom).

Mahalo

Posted by: Warrior07 | March 24, 2009 8:04 PM

Gosh, so what should I do with my GWOT-E and GWOT-S Medals? Throw them over the White House fence?

Posted by: prcauch | March 24, 2009 8:04 PM

And what if the enemy is domestic and not overseas.

Posted by: wapoisajoke | March 24, 2009 8:00 PM

In response to JakeD's comment, you are slightly misinformed. Bin Laden in fact declared war against the "Crusaders and Jews" in August of 1996. In his mind, he and his faithful HAVE been at war with the US since then. Try informing yourself before making moronic comments. It took people like you (e.g. the Clinto crew) to get us in this fix in the first place. Obama is following the same misguided appeasement policy. I expect that we will see violence visited upon us yet again, because weak politicians (aka OBAMA) will try to make everyone happy instead of having a backbone.

Posted by: MitchR | March 24, 2009 7:58 PM

Aloha,
George Orwell is totally out-classed by the current form of double speak.

As ALGORE said in the 92 Presidential Campaign, while baging the table Kruschev-style. Whats up is down and what's down is up.

I don't know what he was getting at back then, but Obama and Reid/Polosi-O really put the statment in perspective.
Mahao

Posted by: Warrior07 | March 24, 2009 7:55 PM

Lebanon was an "Overseas Contingency Operation," Kosovo was and is an "Overseas Contingency Operation," tsunami relief is an "Overseas Contingency Operation." Make no mistake, Iraq and Afghanistan are part of a war. Just because the previous administration failed to evoke a wartime attitude of national sacrifice from the American people doesn't mean the current administration can make our fight against terrorism and extremism disappear with a name change. The long term consequences of this are more dangerous to the United States then most would care to admit.

Posted by: citizen-soldier | March 24, 2009 7:54 PM

Wow. "Overseas Contingency Operation" is the same name I've given to my plan for employment!!!

Posted by: scmdod | March 24, 2009 7:52 PM

Why don't we just give up, throw in the towel and wait for the idiot (obama neville chamberlain) in the Whitehouse to leave. At that point we can rebuild the USA and PROTECT it

Star the revolution now, April 19th was a good start date in 1775

Posted by: rcbeng | March 24, 2009 7:48 PM

An "ordinary" criminal does not kill 4,251 policemen and women. Pre-9/11 thinking is going to end up killing many more Americans.

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2009 5:04 PM

I wish the public would, once and for all, reject the misleading practice of labeling every government initiative 'against' anything as a "war"....it isn't just hyperbole, because the advocates always expand and expound upon the war metaphor to urge policies that would otherwise be accepted by the public ONLY if the society were struggling against an existential threat. Terrorists are just criminals, and are a fringe element even as thugs go; they have never been an existential threat to our society, but (on that scale) merely an annoyance, less of an actual threat than, say, drunk drivers. It merely glorifies their murderous conduct to pretend it is a "war", since, if we are at "war" with them (justifying almost any act, including homicide) then it follows that they are also at "war" with us (and morally entitled to the same sort of conduct against our entire society as it employs against them)...whatever is just and proper conduct for one participant in a war is at least arguably also just and proper for his adversary.

If we recognize them as criminals, a different logic entirely prevails: nobody would defend the moral position of an ordinary criminal who kills a policeman to evade arrest... but a soldier killing an enemy soldier? That's another story.

Posted by: Observer44 | March 24, 2009 4:54 PM

How about:
Operation Stop Making Enemies Faster Than You Can Kill Them By Allowing Our Financial Sector To Outgrow The Real Economy And Enslave The Whole World Through Debt For Nothing Of Real Value?

Posted by: rooster54 | March 24, 2009 11:57 AM

Golly gee, I sure hope there won't be any casualties here in the United States from the Overseas Contingency Operation.

Pretending we aren't fighting a war will not make al Qaeda and its spawn leave us alone. GWOT was a bad name because we did not name the enemy. Overseas Contingency Operation is even worse, both for what it doesn't say and for what it portends.

Posted by: Buffal0Bill | March 24, 2009 11:47 AM

I take you haven't been reading scrivener50's posts for very long?

Posted by: JakeD | March 24, 2009 7:32 AM

To JakeD - Fear peddling was the failed propoganda of the Bush Misadministration, of which you are a proud victim. You are rapidly becoming a dinosour, old man.

Posted by: gregp1 | March 24, 2009 12:08 AM

"By way of history, senior Bush administration officials several years ago wanted to stop using the phrase"

dwgerard did you not read this?

Posted by: JRM2 | March 23, 2009 7:09 PM

I once heard a counterterrorism official from France say that one reason they treat terrorist acts as a criminal matter is because declaring war on a terrorist group gives them legitimacy and helps to ignite their "cause" whatever that may be.

Now I know some Americans like to ridicule France for everything but one thing they are VERY good at and have a lot of experience in is counterterrorism.

Furthermore, when you treat it as a judicial matter then you have the opportunity to convict and rightly punish those committing terrorist acts, thereby gaining the moral high-ground which will not serve as a recruiting tool.

Posted by: JRM2 | March 23, 2009 7:08 PM

If you have to have a name for the "struggle" or the "war", global war was a misnomer because it wasn't a global war; it might have been our war around against terrorism anywhere globally (and even that sounds awkward), but there were only a few countries supporting, let alone taking part, in the war. And, in any event, "war" was a dangerous word to use; it means that we've passed trying to do things diplomatically and are using only military assets. Sorry, but it's semantics listened to by other people. We may think of it as a war, but are we willing to make a military sacrifice? Thus far it's been, except for military families, business as usual, no draft, no war bonds, no victory gardens, no rationing, no... well, no war now that you think of it. There's military battles and military action and military fighting, but an all-out fight of this and future generations war? So much for the "global war on terrorism".

And now we're looking to give it a fancy name, "Overseas Contingency Operation?" What does that mean? Contingency, as in 'in case something happens overseas, this is what we'll do'?
Or we have to find a short, flippant name in the manner of T-Rod, D-Wade, etc., by calling it "GSave"? Thank god that GSave never made the cut. It sounds like something I'd do by using my 'club card' at Giant supermarket; you know, shop here at Giant, reduce your cost by using GSave.

Maybe we don't need a fancy name; maybe we can simply call things by what they are; you know, no Facebook or My Space or Twitter screen names. Simply call it the fight against terrorists; the fight against religious extremists; the fight against communists, fascists, Japs, Huns, etc. If it's a war, then treat it as a war, and not a politically correct on-going activity. If it's a war, then fight it as if it were one; and if it's not, then let's not give it fancy names, catchy names, names that catch your attention in sound bytes.

Posted by: Dungarees | March 23, 2009 6:47 PM

You're welcome.

Posted by: JakeD | March 23, 2009 5:59 PM

JakeD, thank you for confirming the obvious.

Finally, some truth from the Notorious JakeD.

Here is a relevant quote from one of your likely heroes:


"In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility... In the primitive simplicity of [the mind of the masses] they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying."

- 1926, Adolf Hitler, 'Mein Kampf', p. 472

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 23, 2009 5:57 PM

Was the "War on Terror" a Pretext for a More Insidious Crusade...

...by a Federally-enabled, Nationwide Vigilante Army?


***


What has been happened since the dawning of the Bush administration has turned a just society into the “US of KKK-A,” as harsh and impolitic as that sounds.

Perhaps the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was right after all.

And the 21st century version of the Klan — an American Gestapo — remains on the march — hiding behind covert federal “programs of personal financial destruction” and federally-funded community policing and town watch programs co-sponsored by local law enforcement nationwide.

A citizen vigilante army established under Bush-Cheney roams the streets in communities across the nation -- making a mockery of the rule of law.

President Obama must act immediately to restore American civil and human rights — because each day he delays, the forces running these programs, the forces who will resist whatever “change” his presidency offers, are one day closer to making it impossible him to fulfill the “hope” he still embodies.

The saboteurs and Dr. Strangeloves that still lurk in the dark corners of the bureaucracy must be shown the door.

For more on “Gestapo USA” and why team Obama must move immediately to dismantle the Bush-Cheney “extrajudicial punishment network”…

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 23, 2009 5:54 PM

scrivener50:

Was the "War on Terror" a Pretext for a More Insidious Crusade...

...by a Federally-enabled, Nationwide Vigilante Army?

Yes.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Posted by: JakeD | March 23, 2009 5:52 PM

Was the "War on Terror" a Pretext for a More Insidious Crusade...

...by a Federally-enabled, Nationwide Vigilante Army?


***


What has been happened since the dawning of the Bush administration has turned a just society into the “US of KKK-A,” as harsh and impolitic as that sounds.

Perhaps the Rev. Jeremiah Wright was right after all.

And the 21st century version of the Klan — an American Gestapo — remains on the march — hiding behind covert federal “programs of personal financial destruction” and federally-funded community policing and town watch programs co-sponsored by local law enforcement nationwide.

A citizen vigilante army established under Bush-Cheney remains on the march in communities nationwide -- making a mockery of the law of law.

President Obama must act immediately to restore American civil and human rights — because each day he delays, the forces running these programs, the forces who will resist whatever “change” his presidency offers, are one day closer to making it impossible him to fulfill the “hope” he still embodies.

The saboteurs and Dr. Strangeloves that still lurk in the dark corners of the bureaucracy must be shown the door.

For more on “Gestapo USA” and why team Obama must move immediately to dismantle the Bush-Cheney “extrajudicial punishment network”…

http://My.NowPublic.com/scrivener

Posted by: scrivener50 | March 23, 2009 5:49 PM

How many of these declared "wars" have actually worked out well, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on inflation.

dwgerard: I don't know where you are getting the idea that we are ignoring terrorists just because a "phrase" is being retired.

You can believe that the United States armed forces and the DHS are working around the clock to capture terrorists and prevent attacks. One difference you will see is that terrorists will be brought to trial in a court of law and convicted if they are guilty of plotting or carrying out a terrorist act.

There needs to be some moral high-ground or you cannot prevent terrorism in future generations.

Posted by: JRM2 | March 23, 2009 5:31 PM

It seems my comment was removed. But here it is again:

Dwgerard, You should be more careful with how you word your statements. Someone at the FBI could read it as a veiled threat against the President. Perhaps you should follow your own advice and relax.

Posted by: Just_An_Observer | March 23, 2009 5:29 PM

Dwgerard, I'd be careful for you and the way you word your statements. Someone at the FBI might read it as a veiled threat against the President.

Perhaps you should shake some of the dirt off of you and relax...

Posted by: Just_An_Observer | March 23, 2009 5:19 PM

When I read this article, the image that came into my mind is that of an ostrich, with its head in the dirt but it's tail stick up for anyone to put a boot into.

Ignoring a terrorist only emboldens him to hit you in a more spectacular way, and gives him the freedom to prepare in detail for the attack.

Looks like Mr. Obama REALLY wants to emulate his hero, Mr. Lincoln. Be careful what you wish for Mr. Obama, as Mr. Lincoln did not have a pleasant presidency, nor did his life end well.

Posted by: dwgerard | March 23, 2009 4:58 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2009 The Washington Post Company