| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Dems Declare "No More GWOT" |
| 2007-04-04 |
| The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee’s Democratic leadership doesn’t like the phrase. Newspeak - The official language of The “global war on terror,” a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the “long war,” which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years. Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration’s catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “the war in Iraq,” the “war in Afghanistan, “operations in the Horn of Africa” or “ongoing military operations throughout the world.” “There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.” Josh Holly, a spokesman for Rep. Duncan Hunter of California, the committee’s former chairman and now its senior Republican, said Republicans “were not consulted” about the change. Committee aides, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said dropping or reducing references to the global war on terror could have many purposes, including an effort to be more precise about military operations, but also has a political element involving a disagreement over whether the war in Iraq is part of the effort to combat terrorism or is actually a distraction from fighting terrorists. House Democratic leaders who have been pushing for an Iraq withdrawal timetable have talked about the need to get combat troops out of Iraq so they can be deployed against terrorists in other parts of the world, while Republicans have said that Iraq is part of the front line in the war on terror. Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the armed services committee chairman, has been among those who have complained that having the military tied up with Iraq operations has reduced its capacity to respond to more pressing problems, like tracking down al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden. “This is a philosophical and political question,” said a Republican aide. “Republicans generally believe that by fighting the war on terror in Iraq, we are preventing terrorists from spreading elsewhere and are keeping them engaged so they are not attacking us at home.” However, U.S. intelligence officials have been telling Congress that most of the violence in Iraq is the result of sectarian strife and not directly linked to terrorists, although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting. “You have to wonder if this means that we have to rename the GWOT,” said a Republican aide, referring to the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medals established in 2003 for service members involved, directly and indirectly, in military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. “If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named,” said another Republican aide. That is a reference to the fact that the villain in the Harry Potter series, Lord Voldemort, is often referred to as “he who must not be named” because of fears of his dark wizardry. |
| Posted by:Frank G |
| #31 Rowlings, whose books I have assiduously avoided, sometimes pisses me off. "He Who Must Not Be Named" is an oblique, and unrecognized/uncited, reference to the character Hastur depicted in the Cthulhu Mythos. First referenced by Ambrose Bierce, Robert W Chambers later referenced the character and he/its residence in the star system of Aldebaran. H.P. Lovecraft (may he inspire forever) only referenced Hastur once in "The Whisperer In Darkness". Other authors have also referenced He Who Is Not To Be Named, and I've even used him in my online email game "Fire On The Suns" during a long and well-remembered campaign of hte forces of light versus the Unspeakable Ones and what they were attempting to liberate "He Who Is Not To Be Named" in the star system of Aldebaran. The fact that Rowlings gets away with blatant rip offs of this sort without being called to task on it makes me angry (and disappoints me at the same time). Not even Wikipedia recognizes the connection. |
| Posted by: FOTSGreg 2007-04-04 23:58 |
| #30 I'm obliged to ask if it sometimes isn't almost surreal how the Democrats can so thoroughly engage in Newspeak without realizing what they're doing. I know this beggars the question of them knowingly doing this — as in Political Correctness — but it just strikes me as exceptionally odd that the championing of such a common enemy to all people as Newspeak could go on without even the most rabid Democrat pausing to reconsider. Worst of all: If it's unintentional, they're blind as cave fish and if it's intentional, they represent one of the most significant evils of this new century. I suppose there's even the most revolting answer of all: All of the above. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 23:31 |
| #29 GWOI-WI Global War On Idiots Wherever They May Be |
| Posted by: Redneck Jim 2007-04-04 22:41 |
| #28 You tell 'em Joe! Say, how's the weather in Guam? |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2007-04-04 21:01 |
| #27 The DemoLeft in general. like Moud-Mullahs, must have seen the Net maps showing US-Allied flgas popping up all over the place under Dubya's tenure. DIPLOMACY-NEGOTIATIONS, i.e. "Talking to America's enemies", sub-i.e. Radical Iran + Radical Islam: + "ENDING US-LED ACTIVE COMBAT/GROUND OPERATIONS IN IRAQ-ME", ala Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, and other pro-DemoLeft Perts on TV-Radio recently, IS NOT "TROOP WITHDRAWAL", "PULLOUT", "BRINGING THE BOYS HOME", or even "REDEPLOYMENT" as the Dems-MSM want mainstream America to believe. Williams, Colmes, etal. comments have shown, SSSSHHHHHHHH AGAIN, THAT THE DEMS = DEMLEFT ARE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT GETTING THE USA OUT OF EITHER ORAQ OR THE ME PER SE. Undoubtedly, many of the DemoLeft are trying to PC win 2008 by reliving the Clinton 1990's, where the successes of Reagan, Bush 1, + GOP-Right will NOT be acknowledged within the US NPE until a Democrat-Lefty is in the White House, where credit and glory will go NOT to the GOP-Right AGAIN - YOU KNOW, SECULAR ETHICS, not Not NOT N-O-T NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOTTTTT, D *** You, PC + POLITIX OF POLISCHTICK. Unfortunately, since the WOT > WAR FOR THE WORLD + WAR FOR ANTI-US OWG-SWO/CWO = GLOBAL WAR AGAINST AMERICA + AMER-LED/CENTRIC OWG, etal. DUBYA-USA-GOP IS ALSO INTENDED TO TAKE THE BLAME FOR ANY NEW 9-11's = AMER HIROSHIMA(S) + ANY REGIONAL-GLOBAL WAR(s)/WW3 or 4. Anti-Amer agendists-globalists, including but not limited to anti-Amer Americans, WANT THE USA UNDER PC/DENIABLE "JUSTIFIED" OWG + PC/DENIABLE "JUSTIFIED" COMMUNIST-SOCIALIST WORLD ORDER, EVEN IFF IT MEANS CASUALTY-INTENSIVE AMER HIROSHIMA(S) AS POLITICAL CONTINGENCY - YOU KNOW, PATRIOTISM + ETHICS. *O' REILLY this AM [PARAPHRASED] > "TEACHER-STUDENT SEX" incidents + "INTER-STUDENT OPEN SEX IN OPEN CLASSROOM" > NO ONE IN ADULT, LOCAL OR OTHER PUBLIC AUTHORITY IS STOPPING IT NOR WANTS TO STOP IT. THE RADICAL LEFT-PROGRESSIVES IN AMER HAS SUCCESSFULLY, WILFULLY DESTROYED OR ERODED MUCH OF THE USA's MORAL ORDER/CENTER, and CONTINUES TO DO SO, EVEN IN TIME OF WAR WHERE THE VERY EXISTENCE OF THE ENTIRE COUNTRY IS AT STAKE, IN ORDER TO EMPOWER AND ENTRENCH THEIR SECULAR/SOCIALIST PROGRESSIVE AGENDA, ESPEC UNIVERSAL/BIG GUBMINT. All together, now, wid feeling > "THE WOT IS ABOUT THE THREAT FROM RADICAL ISLAM AND ONLY RADICAL ISLAM. THE COMMIES + LEFTIES ARE SUPPORTING RADICAL ISLAM-TERROR BECUZ THEY WANNA BE FRIENDS + PARTY DOWN". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-04 20:56 |
| #26 GWOT > renamed/re-labeled as THE GREAT GLOBAL SOCIALIST WAR FOR ANTI-COMMUNIST FASCISM-FOR-COMMUNISM??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-04-04 20:05 |
| #25 Liberalhawk has hit upon it:"GWOT, was that it implied we would go everywhere there was terror, including, say, Sri Lanka to fight the Tamil Tigers, and that is was like the war on drugs." The Dems want to restrict the language to Iraq to justify their demand for troop withdrawal and the liberal armchair generals on the Hill really want to undermine both President Bush's policies and military strategy. They're fishing again to see if what they suspect is true--if we really are taking it to terrorists wherever they may be found. They are actively working to make sure Bush fails, Iraq is served on a platter to the terrorists, and America is hit again. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2007-04-04 17:29 |
| #24 How about PorKanimals Disposal Project? The whole thing reminds me of an old Saturday Night Live new age social club chant. Bill Murrry leading. "Come on folks join me in the club rouser. It's true if you believe it, it's true if you believe it." |
| Posted by: Icerigger 2007-04-04 12:21 |
| #23 Zen, I wouldn't go that far. They are Dems afterall. Fine, I'll wear some protection. How is it that these bastards can openly promote such blatant Newspeak? This is one step shy of thought crime. Is there a pair amongst them or even a single testicle? Probably Rosie. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 12:03 |
| #22 "the Democrats are even afraid of the word 'terror' so how can they be taken seriously to fight our enemies" It practically writes itself. Can't wait for the election season. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-04-04 11:49 |
| #21 What we are witnessing is the feminization of the donk party. Is there a pair amongst them or even a single testicle? |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2007-04-04 11:33 |
| #20 Zen, I wouldn't go that far. They are Dems afterall. |
| Posted by: RWV 2007-04-04 11:28 |
| #19 committeeÂ’s Democratic leadership doesnÂ’t like the phrase. They probably wouldn't like the phrase "blow me" either, but that's all I'd tell 'em. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-04-04 11:08 |
| #18 the semi-legitimate criticism of the phrase, GWOT, was that it implied we would go everywhere there was terror, including, say, Sri Lanka to fight the Tamil Tigers, and that is was like the war on drugs. As opposed to, say, the war on the Cali Cartel. It should have been called the war on Al Qaeeda, or the war on Al Qaeeda and its allies (to avoid quibbles about JI, etc, etc) The counter was that this excluded Hamas and Hebollah, which are terrorists, are our adversaries, and are arguably to some degree ideologically linked to the Salafist groups, though not completely. To the extent this became about Hamas, however, it became about Israel, and few mainstream Dems are interested in disagreeing with the position that Hamas is a terrorist group we should oppose. The next objection was that it was used to justify the war in IRaq, cause of Saddams money for Pal terror bombers. But in reality that was a small part of the justification, and is pretty far in the past. The real problem, is that the current operations in Iraq are part of the WOT. Now to the Dems this obscures the to them politically significant issue that Iraq had no demonstrable operational ties to AQ, and that going in was questionable as a strategy against AQ. The problem with THAT dem argument, as Krauthammer has stated to eloquently, is that however we got there, NOW Iraq is very much part of the WOT, and arguably the central front - certainly MORE so than Afghanistan. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2007-04-04 10:47 |
| #17 From a related posting by Michael Goldfarb Indeed the disturbing thing about this fascination with rebranding the war on terror is that it, if we may say, came at a time when a resurgent Taliban is stepping up its activities in Afghanistan, al Qaeda bombers are running amok in London, and tourist hotels are being blown up in Egypt. This is self-evidently not a great time to shift from a "Global War on Terror" to a "Long Struggle to Portray Americans as Good People Who Don't Hate Muslims and Respect Religions All Over the World Even as We Try to Dismantle the Networks of Ideological Extremists Who at the Very Least Disagree With Us and May Want to Do Us Harm." Or whatever. Works for me. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2007-04-04 10:44 |
| #16 Their intent here is to split all of the operations into bits, rather than parts of a connected whole. It's as if the Congress in 1943 had started allocating funds specifically for areas of operations -- $X for North Africa, $Y for the Mediterranean, $Z for the Aleutians, etc. The goal is to allow them to choke off funds for areas of operation they don't like. Parallel to, say, cutting the funds for operations in the Aleutians to zero. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2007-04-04 10:41 |
| #15 “…although some foreign insurgents with ties to terrorist groups have been helping to fuel the fighting.” Here’s a suggestion on how to “avoid using colloquialisms.” People who intentionally slaughter innocent people as a means for political, economic, or social extortion are called “Terrorists”. Not “Insurgents”, "Freedom Fighters" or “Resistance groups” they’re called “Terrorists”. It's really not that difficult. |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2007-04-04 10:34 |
| #14 Excerpt from "The Principles of Newspeak" An appendix to 1984 Written by : George Orwell in 1948 Newspeak was the official language of Oceania, and had been devised to meet the ideological needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism. In the year 1984 there was not as yet anyone who used Newspeak as his sole means of communication, either in speech or writing. The leading articles of the Times were written in it, but this was a tour de force which could only be carried out by a specialist, It was expected that Newspeak would have finally superseded Oldspeak (or standard English, as we should call it) by about the year 2050. Meanwhile, it gained ground steadily, all party members tending to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. The version in 1984, and embodied in the Ninth and Tenth Editions of Newspeak dictionary, was a provisional one, and contained many superfluous words and archaic formations which were due to be suppressed later. It is with the final, perfected version, as embodied in the Eleventh Edition of the dictionary, that we are concerned here. The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought -- that is, a thought diverging from the principles of IngSoc -- should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever. |
| Posted by: SwissTex 2007-04-04 10:28 |
| #13 Lol. The BlogAd at the bottom of the page is for custom magnet ribbons: "Your Truth Here" |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-04-04 10:23 |
| #12 Though they did it for petty partisan reasons, they have inadvertently done the White House a really big favor in doing this. First of all, the War on Terror was never very appropriate because of its Orwellian connotations. Second of all, it was bound to "burn out" over time, like the 38-year-old War on Drugs. It has irritated the public that the administration has continued to label it "the 'war' in Iraq", though the war ended in 2003, and thus hurt itself by turning a "police occupation" into something that is *beyond* military solution--that must be solved politically, eventually. How can the military "win" something like that? When can we declare victory? When the crime rate drops? Another election? The WoT is has been hurt by association, even though it is technically more correct as a continuing war. As a slogan it has achieved its goal of convincing everyone that actions against Islamic terrorism are worldwide, crosses national boundaries easily, and must be met with the full force of both military and civil actions. So the purpose of the label has been accomplished. Now we need a new label, to describe ongoing operations around the world. Since WoT is associated with George W. Bush, we have to move beyond it, if we have any hope of the democrats doing *anything* against terrorists if they ever get a President elected. Oh, great. Now we just need to teach the democrats what "foreign policy" is--certainly not just agreeing with whatever the French feel like doing. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2007-04-04 10:18 |
| #11 There are no enemies, only friends we haven't met yet. Group hug! |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2007-04-04 10:10 |
| #10 Manifest Destiny works for me. |
| Posted by: ed 2007-04-04 09:44 |
| #9 Doesn't matter what you call it. We are not going to win the war against militant Islam until we win the war within. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2007-04-04 09:43 |
| #8 If anyone wants to shout out for the troops and against dhimmitude come to the Rolling Thunder/Gathering of Eagles rally in DC on May 27th. We will be on the Mall by the Lincoln and Vietnam Memorials. Just follow the flags! |
| Posted by: DanNY 2007-04-04 09:34 |
| #7 I am holding out for "Crusade". Call me old-fashioned. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-04-04 09:30 |
| #6 I really don't understand how nobody in Congress ever takes it outside. If I was in Congress, I would have definitely gotten in a scurmish over all this noodle spinery. |
| Posted by: Mike N. 2007-04-04 09:26 |
| #5 I think the're pushing for 'Illegal war'.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2007-04-04 09:04 |
| #4 Alright then, Global War on Islam works for me.:P |
| Posted by: djohn66 2007-04-04 09:02 |
| #3 oookay... How about GWONNT (Global war on not nice things) or GFANP (Global Fellowship against Nasty People) or GMFMU (Global Movement For Multicultural Unity)? |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2007-04-04 09:01 |
| #2 I agree, we should re-divert those funds for the newly coined "GWOD" (Global War On Dhimmitude). |
| Posted by: Broadhead6 2007-04-04 08:55 |
| #1 “There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.” Except, of course, for catch phrases like "George Bush's War", "No Blood For Oil", "Bush Lied, People Died", "Responsible Redeployment", "The Rush to War", and such. There really is no hypocrisy too vile for a liberal, is there? |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-04-04 08:53 |