| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| White House: 'War on terrorism' is over |
| 2009-08-06 |
| It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war." It's simple. Call it something else and you can pretend it's gone. It no longer exists. President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism. The mind boggles. What the hell does that mean? Terrorism isn't something that can be looked at in a "new way". The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda." "We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but has not used it since. Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred. There is no way to "undermine the upstream factors etc. And just what does that mean? This is rediculous and shows that this administration does not understand the nature of our enemy. Quick spelling tip: ridiculous is spelled with two "i"s, and no "e". The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will do that. Par for the course. Talk about generalities and hope everything works out all right. He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism. Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve." "Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said. We are. If we aren't, we should be. As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a tactic -- a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate." "You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said. So is he saying that we can never defeat Al Queda? He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups -- which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving threat" -- should not be called "a global war." Why not when it's a Global Stage? While Mr. Brennan acknowledged that al Qaeda and its affiliates are active in countries throughout the Middle East and Africa, he also said that "portraying this as a 'global' war risks reinforcing the very image that al Qaeda seeks to project of itself -- that it is a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate." The president's adviser said that in discussing counter terror operations, Mr. Obama "has encouraged us to be even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative" than they have been proposing. Why haven't we seen any actions if that's what he wants? But Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological." There's that word again. I much prefer someone who is direct. I know exactly what they mean. |
| Posted by:Deacon Blues |
| #17 can get back to the War on Capitalism. War on Middle Class. War on Free Thought. War on Liberty. War on Christianity. War on Whitey's Momma. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-08-06 22:54 |
| #16 Now Obama and the Democrats can get back to the War on Capitalism. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2009-08-06 21:03 |
| #15 AFAIK no one has told the COMMIES + ISLAMISTS. IOW, Radical Islam will be free to continue their rampage = Jihad in ASIA, AFRICA, etc, destabilizin' and a'nuclearizin' at their will. WMF > GREAT CIRCLE OF BATTLE/WAR: CHINA'S PLA TRAINS IN NORTH CHINA TO FIGHT SEVERAL WARS AT ONCE; + JAPAN PANIC: THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHINA SENDING TROOPS INTO AFGANISTAN [under UNO or "militarized" SCTO]. To wit, * North Korea * Afghanistan = AFPAK * Iran? * Tibet = INDIA * US MILBASES in CENASIA = Kyrgyzstan? * CHINA SEAS Lest we fergit, agz the US Navy, CHINA > has no qualms about PREEMPTIVELY NUKING JAPAN'S MAJOR CITIES [25 Nuctargets] AND THEN TURNING ITS MISSLES AGZ THE US NAVY + US CITIES. DITTO FOR SINO-US WAR OVER TAIWAN. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-08-06 20:18 |
| #14 So he says that Bush won it, and any strikes forward of this are Oabama's responsibility? That is the only logical conclusion. |
| Posted by: Thraimp Hatfield2565 2009-08-06 19:41 |
| #13 The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." in discussing counter terror operations... no rain, no rainbow |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins 5*** 2009-08-06 19:22 |
| #12 The president's adviser said that in discussing counter terror operations, Mr. Obama "has encouraged us to be even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative" than they have been proposing. Someone is channeling Kimmie. |
| Posted by: Skunky Glins 5*** 2009-08-06 19:18 |
| #11 JohnQC, if more buildings fall it will be for the same reason as the last ones fell - to enrich Chimpy McHalliburton BusHitler. I know it is true cuz I read it on the intarwebs someplace. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2009-08-06 18:39 |
| #10 Well, did ya think to inform the other side that the war has been called off? I see buildings falling again our future. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2009-08-06 18:24 |
| #9 an attack now on our land would do wonders for the clarity of differences between the two parties, I think |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-08-06 18:11 |
| #8 I'm pretty sure the War On Civilization is still on.... |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2009-08-06 17:51 |
| #7 "IF", OP?????? |
| Posted by: AlanC 2009-08-06 17:46 |
| #6 "President" OBumble is an idiot. The war of terror was declared against us. We either fight and win, or we surrender. The majority of the people in the United States are not willing to surrender. All this semanticism is just a front to hide behind if things go wrong during OBumble's watch. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2009-08-06 17:41 |
| #5 Mr.Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological." yeah, like when he calls cops doing their job, stupid. So much for being "nuanced, not simplistic" |
| Posted by: tipper 2009-08-06 17:23 |
| #4 Yeah! Back to 9-10-01 mentality! w00t! Hope and Change, baby! |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-08-06 17:06 |
| #3 We have a long history of changing the names, for example: The War of Northern aggression. LOL! OK, back to current times, how about the next Crusade? The Never Ending War? Or last but not least, Obama's War of Apeasement? |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2009-08-06 16:56 |
| #2 How about The Overseas Contingency Operation Against Man Caused Disasters? Is that still on? |
| Posted by: tu3031 2009-08-06 16:18 |
| #1 Great! Who won? |
| Posted by: Grenter, Protector of the Geats 2009-08-06 16:12 |