| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| No More WoT: It's a "struggle" now - Washington Plays Word Games |
| 2005-07-27 |
| Via Drudge, and the NYT, so it has to be true. The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, according to senior administration and military officials. I thought "jihad" meant "struggle". Stop confusing me. In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the country's top military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say the earlier phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign. General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." And, for the most part, they are. He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use." Sorry, General, but you're a fool. Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded. Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President George W. Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks. Rumsfeld spoke in the new terms on Friday when he addressed an audience in Annapolis, Maryland, for the retirement ceremony of Admiral Vern Clark as chief of naval operations. Rumsfeld described America's efforts as it "wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization." But what Rummy said is not fundamentally different from what W has said repeatedly in his own speeches during the last four years. Methinks NYT is trying to blow this out of proportion and claim "victory" for those media shills who have tried to change the WoT verbage, ala BBC, CBC, NYT itself, etc. The shifting language is one of the most public changes in the administration's strategy to battle Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and it tracks closely with Bush's recent speeches emphasizing freedom, democracy and the worldwide clash of ideas. "It is more than just a military war on terror," Steven Hadley, the national security adviser, said in a telephone interview. "It's broader than that. It's a global struggle against extremism. We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative." It's always been about more than the military portion of the WoT. Doesn't make it any less of a war, NYT. The language shift also comes at a time when Bush, with a new appointment for one of his most trusted aides, Karen Hughes, is trying to bolster the State Department's efforts at public diplomacy. Lawrence Di Rita, Rumsfeld's spokesman, said the change in language "is not a shift in thinking, but a continuation of the immediate post-9/11 approach." "The president then said we were going to use all the means of national power and influence to defeat this enemy," Di Rita said. "We must continue to be more expansive than what the public is understandably focused on now: the military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq." By stressing to the public that the effort is not only military, the administration may also be trying to reassure those in uniform who have begun complaining that only members of the armed forces are being asked to sacrifice for the effort. Translation: Grunts are pissed about the MSM continually conducting "polls" and reporting the WoT from the most pessimistic standpoint they can. New opinion polls show that the American public is increasingly pessimistic about the mission in Iraq, with many doubting its link to the counterterrorism mission. See? Thus, a new emphasis on reminding the public of the broader, long-term threat to the United States may allow the administration to put into broader perspective the daily mayhem in Iraq and the American casualties. The administration could use some honest help from the MSM when it comes to reorting that "broader perspective" instead of harping on the "daily mayhem", but that's too much to ask for. Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, said in an interview that if America's efforts were limited to "protecting the homeland and attacking and disrupting terrorist networks, you're on a treadmill that is likely to get faster and faster with time." The key to "ultimately winning the war," he said, "is addressing the ideological part of the war that deals with how the terrorists recruit and indoctrinate new terrorists." No shit Sherlock, however this is apparently news to the NYT writers. |
| Posted by:Chris W. |
| #7 Right, Peter. Maybe if I leave that bully alone, he'll stop taking my lunch money and giving me wedgies. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2005-07-27 23:54 |
| #6 Face it, the 'WOT' was a joke from the beginning. As Wolfowitz would put it, that was just the name used to get the ignorant masses behind the whole poorly thought out invasion of Iraq. Probably their marketing dept. is changing the 'WOT' propaganda effort, realizing that obviously rather than fighting terrorism, they have simply added more fuel to the fire. Further, while the U.S. is bogged down, real WMD threats like China and N. Korea build up their military, and countries like Iran ink deals with China, India and Russia. Afghanistan/Pakistan/Saudi Arabia teeter along, where will the resources be should things start to unwind there? Further, Chicken Little "sky is falling" Bush and his poodle Blair, having lost credibility, where will they get help, having squandered it, when the Wolf really appears? Sun Tzu long ago said the first thing is to "Understand your enemy." With most people reading Drudge and NYTimes - that's not going to happen. |
| Posted by: Peter Jones 2005-07-27 23:48 |
| #5 Its official - the WOT is now a clash between GLOBAL EMPIRES AND WHICH -iSM(S) WILL CONTROL THE FUTURE GLOBAL OWG, one realistic [US/Western Democapitalism, Consumerism, etc.]while the other is a down-but-not-out, starving, but still desperate/power-hungry wannabe [Socialism-Communism]. Angry Leftism = Radic Islam = Socie-Communism = "ITS ABOUT ME AND HOW THE WORLD AND EVERYONE MUST BE RULED BY ME EVEN IFF I DON'T DESERVE IT". Left > better get my or our way or I/We are gonna break something, and take the world with us like the way the Chicoms blew up the Moon circa 2030. *BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2005-07-27 23:14 |
| #4 He(General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use. Let's call it what it is, a war against fundamentalist Islam. Semantics I know, but important distinctions must be made about who the enemy is. Lest our campaign against "terror" define some friendlies as enemies. IMHO a war on terrorism is unwinnable, for it is a war on a type of warfare with no indicators of success or plausible end in sight. While a war on fundamentalist islamic terrorism has a realistic goal and plain indicators of success. What are they keeping it PC by not naming the Islamists as the root problem? War on Wahabbi would suit me too! Our war on terorism could end up becoming more of a global excuse for assmunch leaders like Uzbekistans' "president" to crack down on legitimate freedom fighters in UZ just because of the association with the "war on terror" that has come to be placed on homegrown resistance efforts. Yeah, the resistance in Uzbekistan is made up largely of Muslims as is the entire country, and yeah they are after his ass with little more than farm implements in many cases, but they are fighting for freedom from a freakin Stalinist asshole who makes Saddam look like a good neighbor. We should be cheering these people on, lest Wahabbism and radical islam become the only good alternative to being put into the gulags or the ground. We could influence them toward democracy were we to help them wipe this fucknut out and replace him with a legitimate democratic system. God knows we need another friendly govt in Central Asia. Also, We could have our hands tied in the international forums such as the UN that would limit our military options against such despots if we continue to define "terrorism" as the enemy. Arms and support from America have and will continue to flow to small groups of freedom fighters(many of whom are defined as terrorist by the powers that be in their country)Kurdish resistance fighters are an example I could point to. We must retain that option as a legitimate use of force lest we allow those unfriendly UN factions the legal room to define our actions as terrorist. Hell, most of the post WWII conflict of the 20th century was played out in proxy wars betwixt us and the Ruskies. Imagine if we had not retained the "freedom fighter" option. So this redefinition of the War on Teror is needed it seems. Take it or leave it. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-07-27 16:23 |
| #3 I dunno, Pie Fight on Terror, Pillow Fight on Terror? Get the Lefties on board... |
| Posted by: tu3031 2005-07-27 15:40 |
| #2 How about G-WIT? Global War on Islamic Terrorism? Says it all, sort of insennnnnnnnnnnnnnnnsitive, though. "Global struggle agains violent extremism" sounds like something out of "China Reconstructs" propaganda magazine of the 1960s. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2005-07-27 15:29 |
| #1 Weasel words from word weasels. |
| Posted by: .com 2005-07-27 13:34 |