No more GWOT, House committee decrees

militarytimes.com ^ | 4/04/2007 | By Rick Maze

[Screamname]

No more GWOT, House committee decrees

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.

[Screamname]

“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.”

....and help lose the GWOT.

[rockinqsranch]

Jimmuh Cahtah didn’t like the terminology “Illegal Aliens”, and ordered his Administration to use only “Undocumented Immigrants” to reference “Illegal Aliens”.

Nothing Political.

Another slap at Bush.

[yankeedame]

“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified.

I see, and is that why you asked not to be identified?

[Coldwater Creek]

POWER HUNGRY TRAITORS. (That’s our assessment as a military family).

[Savage Beast]

We definitely need ruthless truthfulness in this dangerous world, and the more precise and truthful the language used the better. Therefore it is important, but often difficult and sometimes impossible, to know whether political--and other--leaders are struggling for precision and honesty or whether it is an Orwellian manipulation.

My opinion of politicians in general and Democrats in particular is so low as to suspect Orwellian manipulation and concealed motivation and to doubt truthfulness almost as a knee-jerk instinct--an instinct that experience makes me reluctant to abandon.

Certainly in the case of European political leaders, and other outspoken Europeans, there is a strong current of denial and dangerous aversion to truth that makes comparison to Orwellian nightmare impossible to avoid.

The obviousness that the American Left, by which the Democrat Party is controlled, represents the same, strong current of decadence that appears to have damned Europe to a nightmarish future makes its comparison to an Orwellian nightmare also unavoidable.

Would that it were not true.

[Screamname]

It`s freggin` disgusting...Any country or group that wanted to attack or invade the US can always count on the Treasoncrats to help them along every step of the way. Look at freggin` Pelosi, just what the F_ is she doing in Syria anyway? What`s her next stop, an Al-Qaeda training camp to see if they have enough rounds?

[Coldwater Creek]

Do you have a crystal ball? I wouldn't be one bit surprised if we don't see the Granny Nanny headed into the mountains on a goat to meet with Osama.

The promises that she is making our enemies, is that hold on just a few more months until the dems take control, and we will go home and everything will be back to normal.

[LibLieSlayer]

If you are a dim, you are my enemy, the enemy of freedom and an ENEMY of AMERICA! Screw ALL dims... they waste oxygen!

LLS

[LIConFem]

Sickening Sons of Bitc$es.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Call the Global War on Terror what it is then! WWIII. Call Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc., what they are: The Iraq Front, the Afghanistan Front,Etc.

Call the enemy by name: Islam.

Then call Americans whose actions lend comfort and support to the enemy, what they are: TRAITORS!

[mewzilla]

Graduates of the Joseph Goebbels School of Propaganda.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

I thought of a little kid putting his fingers in his ears and going “la, la, la, la, I can’t hear you!”

Are there any adults in the House?

[PJ-Comix]

The House waved the Magic Lexicon Wand to make the Global War On Terror go away.

[DreamsofPolycarp]

How do you "go to war" against an ideology?

And how do you declare "victory"

You can't. We can, and should, declare war (haven't bothered yet) against nation states who actively seek to harm us (and YES, I believe in pre-emptive strikes). I have no problem at all in hunting down and killing any known terrorists or terrorist enablers, either.

This, however, is fated to be no different than the "war on poverty" or the "war on drugs." No clear goals, no way to get accountability, and sn eternal metastasizing of the "war effort."

As long as there is one poor child, as long as there is one kid smoking a joint somewhere, as long as there is a Mustafa in a a cave slobbering over the Koran with an RPG, the war must go on. Using that type of terminology is silly, and actually cheapens our efforts to resist terrorism.

"WAR" is a term for total destruction of an enemy, not for fighting an ideology.

Israel has been resisting islamofascism FAR longer than we have, and they don't resort to silly emotionally manipulative phraseology. They just kick ass when Egypt, Syria, or whoever comes after them....., and they hunt down and kill terrorists. We could learn a thing or two from them.

[Sig Sauer P220]

Dems = buncha f*ck*ng pansies.

[rockinqsranch]

...“There was no political intent in doing this,”...

“...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.”

No “POLITICAL INTENT”?

Many didn’t think twice about that announcement in the ‘70’s when the Dems concocted the language in support of Political Correctness. We need call them on this one.

[Garvin]

I guess the DoD will need to rename this site along with the GWOT Medal

http://www.defendamerica.mil/

[Grut]

Right move, wrong reason; the GWOT no longer has anything very ‘global’ about it because the Bush administration has, through pure incompetence, let it be turned into ‘the war in Iraq’.

Still, I’m sure we’ll get a reminder of its real nature one of these days.

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

Those who control the language, control thoughts.

This is the Dems trying to be controllers of the effort they had nothing to do with except expressing their regret for having supported it.

[Blue_Ridge_Mtn_Geek]

GWOT is indeed too vague a term. Like the “War on Drugs”, the “War on Cancer”, and the “War on Crime” it evokes a nebulous menace that is used tojustify distortion and side-tracking of legal processes, and accumulation of “extraordinary powers” in the hands of public officials and “extraordinary spending” pretexts by vote-hungry politicians looking for ways to extract more funds to buy votes for their next election.

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. Calling enemies “terrorists” is mere posturing. The global war on Wahabism would be more precise, but problematic given the Saudi sponsorship of the institutions that have spread this extreme version of Islam across the globe, western nations’ dependence on Saudi oil, US dependence on Saudi support for the dollar, and the other adversaries in the Islamic world, apocalyptic Shia, who are just as threatening to the US, but would benefit by a US struggle with their traditional Sunni enemies that weakened the latter.

It’s not an easy question, and certainly not one that will be sensibly addressed by domestic political factions that are more focused on winning the next election than on the threats to their country’s future.

[mimaw]

Why not rename the armed service committee the capitulation committee?

[Steel Wolf]

Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy. Calling enemies “terrorists” is mere posturing. The global war on Wahabism would be more precise, but problematic given the Saudi sponsorship of the institutions that have spread this extreme version of Islam across the globe,

I'm all for replacing the term GWOT. It's a euphamism anyway. We are in a global war on Wahabbism. "Terror" is a cop out, and one that has complicated and prolonged our understanding of the enemy.

The Democrats reason for discontinuing the term is, of course, abjectly political. But it may open the door for a more appropriate replacement.

[RedEyeJack]

Somewhere George Orwell is laughing...

[Alissa]

GREAT POST!!!!!!!

[highball]

We definitely need ruthless truthfulness in this dangerous world, and the more precise and truthful the language used the better. Therefore it is important, but often difficult and sometimes impossible, to know whether political--and other--leaders are struggling for precision and honesty or whether it is an Orwellian manipulation.

I agree, and that's why I actually think this is a good move, although certainly done for the wrong reasons.

Euphamisms have been used to hide all manner of governmental shenanigans. Better to call things what they really are instead of this vague pretense.

"Terror" is an abstract concept. We can not win a war on "terror" any more than we can win a War on Poverty - both are part of life and will be with us until the end of time.

What do you think a Democrat President will define as a proper target in a War on Terror? That's why it's important that we choose our terms correctly. Words mean things.

I'm angry that the Dims are playing language games to score political points, but I think the end goal is a postive one - let's talk about what we're really fighting, instead of a politically correct euphamism like "terror."

[F.J. Mitchell]

Thank you Allissa.

[FairOpinion]

” help lose the GWOT.”

Exactly!

When you break it down to small operations - then first of all they are micromanaging, and second of all, they can say, “we only defunded this little operation over in Somalia” — without having to admit that it was a key part in our war on terror.

As I said before, the Democrats will kill us all, by encouraging the terrorists.

People need to realize how dangerous the Democrats are to our very survival and focus on taking back Congress from them and electing a Republican president, instead of letting Hillary and the Democrats complete the destruction of our nation.

[GATOR NAVY]

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean do many different things.”

“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

[Jim Verdolini]

“Why not rename the armed service committee the capitulation committee?”

I like the ‘cut and run committee’. Perhaps we should mention the commitee flag, the chicken on a field of yellow.

[Holicheese]

Maybe they can get rid of some more “catch phrases”:
Right Wing Conspiracy
Bush Lied, People Died
Bush’s Vietnam
Quagmire
Global Warming
Osama Bin Forgotten

[Deb]

The Democrats didn't mind using catch phrases like "The War on Poverty", "The New Frontier", "The New Deal" etc.

Blah, blah, blah.

[Kerretarded]

I can only hope that MANY Americans are already getting thoroughly disgusted with how the Dems are acting. Personally, I don’t even watch much news any more because I know that from day to day, the Dems are going to do something or suggest something completely beyond comprehension and the MSM will cover it while drooling.

[pleikumud]

“House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror”

This should be renamed the Committee for Public Safety, with Robespierre as chairman. And the DNC should be renamed The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. The committee’s “logic” is consistent with “hate speech” and “diversity” and “global warming” - all attempts at thought control. Stalin, Mao, Marx, Hitler, Castro and Saddam Hussein would be very comfortable Democrats.

[Kerretarded]

Treasoncrats

I like it. May I use?

[The Shrew]

Ya'all have too high an opinion of the Dims.

My take is that this is an attempt to further restrict the military in where and how it uses it's money. i.e.: Drone overflying Muslim extremists in Mindoro, PI sees, identifies and then targets a group of Al-Queda types. Our Dim leaders than find out that the money that paid for said drone was supposed to be used in Iraq. Hence, allegations of missapproriation of funds etc. ensue.

Regards,

TS

[Kerretarded]

Call the Global War on Terror what it is then! WWIII. Call Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., etc., what they are: The Iraq Front, the Afghanistan Front,Etc.

Exactly! The battle of Iraq and the battle of Afghanistan as were many other battles we have already fought are each battles in the Global War on Terror!

[Deb]

Of course. Everything they do is to ensure our defeat.

[bioqubit]

This is so Animal Farm

[Cap Huff]

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party, will no longer be referred to as Democratic since it is not an accurate description of the aims of the party . . .

A memo, written by Freeper Cap Huff, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as “Treason Party” the “Quislingcrats,” “Benedict Arnoldites” or “Backstabbers.”

There was no politcal intent in doing this, said Cap Huff. We’re just trying to avoid using misnomers.

[Kerretarded]

We are in a global war on Wahabbism

Do not leave out Salafism.

[Screamname]

I like “Treasoncrats”. It explains them exactly. They are Democrats who mutated into traitors. Democrats use to be patriots but not anymore. Treason is their #1 forte, so you take “Treason” and “Democrats” and you get “Treasoncrats”. The Democrat party has long been dead. All that exists now is a party that focuses on treason and socialist/terrorist/ communist principals. Anything that is anti-US they embrace.

[Cap Huff]

Yes, it has been a long time since we’ve been able to really have any semblance of trust that they will do what is right for the country in foreign affairs, and they have been abominable on the issue of the GWOT, or the Long War.

[azhenfud]

“We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”
******************************
“Winning” is a catch phrase I wish Democrats embraced.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

******************************************************************

There is a book (now available in paperback ):

***********************

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left
(Hardcover)
by David Horowitz

********************************************************

And reviews:

****************************************

Editorial Reviews

Rich Lowry, Editor National Review

David Horowitz is synonymous with pyrotechnics. A historian and polemicist of the first order, he is paid the ultimate compliment --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

Davis Hanson, Author, Ripples of Battle

An original look at those who want us to fail in the Middle East, both at home and abroad. The --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.

***********************************************************

See all Editorial Reviews

Fascinating Analysis of Leftist Goals, August 13, 2006

Reviewer: N. Sincerity - See all my reviews

A former 1960s radical, Horowitz is well-acquainted with the Leftist mindset. In this book, he strives to explain the modern alliance between left wing progressivists and radical Islamofascists. He argues that this alliance is based on a common desire to destroy Western capitalism. Leftist sympathy with Islamofascist ideas makes no sense from an intellectual point of view, given that countries ruled by radical Islamists are among the most racist, sexist, theocratic states in the world today. However, Leftists have recognized that they can benefit politically from destructive terrorist attacks on the Western world. A West under attack can be made to turn on its leaders in fear and desperation (as they did in Spain after the Madrid train bombings). Only once people reject current government structures can the Left execute its anti-capitalist revolution and build a new reality that mirrors the Leftist view of utopia.

The complete and utter idealogical hypocrisy of the Islamofascist-Leftist alliance is distressing, but as Horowitz reminds us,

Leftists radicals truly believe the ends justify the means.

***************************************

[AmusedBystander]

I propose that Democrats define the WOT by passing the following bill and it can then become known by it's acronym:

Protect United States' Skyscrapers & Yellowbellies Act, also known as PUSSY Act. Dems could be proud of that.

[highlander_UW]

Fine...we’re fighting the World Wide War on Terror...WWWT. Problem fixed.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Bump.

[streetpreacher]

How ‘bout the war on Islamofascism and Leftist Turncoat Traitors?

[pawdoggie]

If the GOP, and the conservative and Republican oriented 527 groups don't jump all over this with some creative advertising NOW (as opposed to 2008), we truly are the "stupid party". This is the ultimate expression of J.F. Kerry's "terrorism becomes a law enforcement problem...(and) a nuisance" philosophy, and the Democrats need to have their noses rubbed in this, big time.

The Bush Administration can do its bit by publicly announcing an Executive Order to all Federal agencies (especially Homeland Security and DoD) that the phrase "Global War on Terror" will be used in official documents, attempts in Congress to discourage it notwithstanding. Congressional Republicans should attempt to insert this language in Defense and Homeland security appropriations measures. That having been said, I'm not holding my breath.

[AFPhys]

Yippee! We Won!