PDA

View Full Version : No more GWOT, House committee decrees



stephanie
04-04-2007, 03:23 PM
WTF!
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Apr 3, 2007 20:12:47 EDT

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.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and “avoid using colloquialisms.”

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.

http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2007/04/military_gwot_democrats_070403w/

darin
04-04-2007, 03:25 PM
They're pussies. :(

Nienna
04-04-2007, 03:58 PM
That's how to enact change. First, start calling stuff by different names so that no one knows what you are really talking about. Then you can make up stuff about the newly-named thing, and people won't know whether it's true or not, because they don't know what it is. Then, when everyone is nice and confused, call for "change," and most will agree, because they want to seem as if they stand for SOMETHING, even if they aren't sure what that something is really all about.

theHawk
04-04-2007, 04:20 PM
OMG LMAO.


I know, lets ban the word "abortion". If we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist!

I knew a Democratic led Congress would be entertaining to say the least, but my God, WHERE do they come up with this stuff?

Nienna
04-04-2007, 04:23 PM
OMG LMAO.


I know, lets ban the word "abortion". If we don't talk about it, it doesn't exist!

I knew a Democratic led Congress would be entertaining to say the least, but my God, WHERE do they come up with this stuff?

Why do you think they call it "choice" now? :)

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 04:35 PM
Let's call it what it is The War with islam. That is who we are fighting. A rose by any other name......

The dems want to pull out of the iraq front and concentrate on going after bin laden. Ok, lets do it. It means invading pakistan. I'm sure the dems are chomping at the bit to do that. What other countries do they want us to invade? It seems they have no problem with us fighting the islamist anywhere in the world except iraq.

Nuc
04-04-2007, 04:40 PM
It's impossible to win a "War on Terror". It's impossible to win a "War on Drugs". It may be possible to win the "War on Poverty" but America doesn't have the will.

Declaring idiotic "Wars" that can't possibly be won is not good for the national psyche. :pee: :poke:

stephanie
04-04-2007, 04:43 PM
It's impossible to win a "War on Terror". It's impossible to win a "War on Drugs". It may be possible to win the "War on Poverty" but America doesn't have the will.

Declaring idiotic "Wars" that can't possibly be won is not good for the national psyche. :pee: :poke:

So.... we just sit here and let them fly airplanes into our buildings, next will be a dirty bomb....

At least WE weren't starting a Idiotic war..:slap:

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 05:22 PM
They can play the name game till they turn blue. They can be as pc as they posibly can. It's still the war with islam and it will be known as that in the history books 50 years from now.

The islam war has been going on since 1979 and will continue until islam is eraticated from the world.

Abbey
04-04-2007, 05:29 PM
Interesting issue. Dems can use their term "War on Poverty", which was no war in any traditional sense, and had no tangible enemy, but using "War on Terror" is wrong. :laugh2:

The change in terminology is just an attempt to dilute what the Dems see as the Republicans' most potent issue in the 2008 election. Poor Dems, the terrorists will continue to make sure it stays in Americans' minds, no matter what we call it.

avatar4321
04-04-2007, 06:11 PM
They're pussies. :(

no, they as lack pussies as well as balls. they are just inhuman.

avatar4321
04-04-2007, 06:12 PM
They can play the name game till they turn blue. They can be as pc as they posibly can. It's still the war with islam and it will be known as that in the history books 50 years from now.

The islam war has been going on since 1979 and will continue until islam is eraticated from the world.

the Islam war has been going on since 722 in some way or another.

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 06:29 PM
the Islam war has been going on since 722 in some way or another.

Yes that's true, but we didn't really get involved until 1979. It will continue as long as there are muslims.

avatar4321
04-04-2007, 06:46 PM
Yes that's true, but we didn't really get involved until 1979. It will continue as long as there are muslims.

Then lets start converting them all.

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 07:16 PM
Then lets start converting them all.

We can give them the same options. Convert or die.

Nuc
04-04-2007, 08:56 PM
So.... we just sit here and let them fly airplanes into our buildings, next will be a dirty bomb....

At least WE weren't starting a Idiotic war..:slap:

No you fight back. But calling it the "War on Terror" is silly because there always is and always will be terror. It's unwinnable. But the power structure likes unwinnable wars because then they can get funding on a semi-permanent basis for the infrastructure of these "Wars".

If the war is on Al Qaeda, call it "War on Al Qaeda". If it's a war on Saddam, call it "War on Saddam". Then if you win, the war is over. "War on Terror" will never be over.

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 09:13 PM
No you fight back. But calling it the "War on Terror" is silly because there always is and always will be terror. It's unwinnable. But the power structure likes unwinnable wars because then they can get funding on a semi-permanent basis for the infrastructure of these "Wars".

If the war is on Al Qaeda, call it "War on Al Qaeda". If it's a war on Saddam, call it "War on Saddam". Then if you win, the war is over. "War on Terror" will never be over.

Very true but I simplify it even more by calling it the war on islam because in the end that is who we are fighting.

I have never agreed with war on terror as terror is a strategy. It's a total misnomer.

avatar4321
04-04-2007, 09:19 PM
We can give them the same options. Convert or die.

You cant convert someone through force. they may profess, but conversion comes in the hearts.

Nuc
04-04-2007, 09:21 PM
Very true but I simplify it even more by calling it the war on islam because in the end that is who we are fighting.

I have never agreed with war on terror as terror is a strategy. It's a total misnomer.

There are other terrorists in the world like the Tamil Tigers. Tim MacVeigh.

Gunny
04-04-2007, 10:16 PM
There are other terrorists in the world like the Tamil Tigers. Tim MacVeigh.

Tim McVeigh would be an EX-terrorist. The only good kind.:cool:

Nuc
04-04-2007, 10:23 PM
You cant convert someone through force. they may profess, but conversion comes in the hearts.

Christian missionaries went all over the world and "converted" thousands of people who didn't understand the first thing about Christianity. Are you talking about the modern world? Because that is still going on in Africa, Siberia, India, Sri Lanka, anywhere they can bribe people with education and health care. Don't get me wrong, I approve of Christian charities donating education and health care but conversion should not be the price.

Muslims are doing it too of course.

Gaffer
04-04-2007, 10:43 PM
Christian missionaries went all over the world and "converted" thousands of people who didn't understand the first thing about Christianity. Are you talking about the modern world? Because that is still going on in Africa, Siberia, India, Sri Lanka, anywhere they can bribe people with education and health care. Don't get me wrong, I approve of Christian charities donating education and health care but conversion should not be the price.

Muslims are doing it too of course.

But muslims do it at the point of a gun.