War on Terror is Wrong

[deep]

The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.

 

[U2democrat]

 

[Tilli]

Perhaps someone should tell George Bush and Tony Blair that as they don't seem to get it.

 

[Numb1075]

you folks don't think they tried to do this diplomatically?

 

[Irvine511]

Say G-WOT?
Terror attacks, Taliban resurgence, suicide bombs—obviously, it's time to change the slogan.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, July 26, 2005, at 12:32 PM PT



Huh ... maybe I should look busy

One question comes to mind while reading the New York Times' report today that the Bush administration has decided to change the name of its counterterrorist campaign from "the global war on terrorism" to "the global struggle against violent extremism": Are these guys really this clueless?

What else to make of the story's opening sentence:

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, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

Three subquestions arise just from the lead. First, this is the administration's solution to the spike in terrorist incidents, the Taliban's resurgence in Afghanistan, and the politico-military deterioration in Iraq—to retool the slogan?

Second, the White House and the Pentagon are just now coming around to the idea that the struggle is as much ideological as military? This wasn't obvious, say, three or four years ago?

Apparently not. Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker, the Times reporters who co-authored the article, note:

Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Mr. Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks. [Italics added.]

It took four years for the president of the United States to realize that fighting terrorism has a political component? It took six months for his senior advisers to retool a slogan? We are witnessing that rare occasion when the phrase "I don't know whether to laugh or cry" can be uttered without lapsing into cliché.

But the shallowness gets deeper still. The Times story doesn't notice what appears to be the driving force behind the new slogan—a desire for a happier acronym.

Look at the first letters of Global War on Terrorism. GWOT. What does that mean; how is it pronounced? Gwot? Too frivolously rowdy, like a fight scene in a Marvel comic book (Bam! Pfooff! Gwot!). Gee-wot? Sounds like a garbled question (Gee what?).

Then look at Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism. Its acronym is GSAVE—i.e., gee-save. We're out to save the world, see, not wage war on it. Or, as national security adviser Stephen Hadley puts it in the Times piece, "We need to dispute both the gloomy vision and offer a positive alternative."

Does Hadley, and do all our other top officials, really believe this nonsense? Are they so enraptured with PR that they think a slogan and a strategy are the same thing and that retooling the one will transform the other? Have we lapsed into the banality of the mid-'70s, when President Gerald Ford tried to beat back 20-percent price hikes by urging Americans to wear gigantic lapel pins that read "WIN"—for Whip Inflation Now?

The Times notes, midway into the story, that the "language shifts" come at a time when Karen Hughes, one of President Bush's most trusted advisers, is about to take over the State Department's office of "public diplomacy." If changing GWOT to GSAVE is a sign of campaigns to come, we are in sorrier shape than anyone might previously have imagined.


Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He can be reached at war_stories@hotmail.com.

 

[flangerchorus]

hey deep, go walk up to a terrorist training camp and tell them to stop killing people, you'll see how well that'll works

 

[Numb1075]

Thank you flangerchorus

 

[U2democrat]

hey deep, go walk up to a terrorist training camp and tell them to stop killing people, you'll see how well that'll works

fine, chop down the tree. but how should you get rid of the roots?

 

[Numb1075]

anyway that will work.....if diplomacy fails and trying to cut off economic suppplies fails, unfortunately it has to be done w/ war.

ANYWAY possible. these are bad people doing bad things.

i was in nyc 9/11 and i have lost friends on that day....that's all the proof that I need to say : "Any Means Necessary"

 

[melon]

Have we lapsed into the banality of the mid-'70s

Yes, we have. The good news is that I guess it means the 1980s should eventually follow and our economy will rebound from our slow trod towards stagflation.

And then the people of India and China will rejoice from all the American corporations hiring their citizens instead of ours.

Melon

 

[nbcrusader]

The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.

Sounds like a slogan.

Do you have any specifics that would end terrorism? Something besides stopping what we are doing?

 

[Tilli]

I don't believe that military action should be the first way forward. I really don't beleive that military strikes in whatever country is really going to make the problem vanish but I do believe alot of innocent people will get killed along the way.

Terrorists who are prepared to kill thousands of innocent people in NY and in the other countries and cities that have been attacked aren't going to be put off by military action as we have already seen. We need to have an understanding of what political, social and economic factors fuel terrorist organisations in the first place. I have no idea how this would be done but military action alone isn't a solution surely?

 

[Numb1075]

i would wager a guess that the fight against terrorism is NOT being waged by the military alone....we are cutting off economic support systems, we are gathering intelligence as to where, who, and why they are targeting certain locations etc.

it's not just military. The US/Britain led fight against terrorism is like a glacier, we only see 1% of what is really going on. There's a whole 99% of the iceburg that we don't see...the military actions are just the most obvious.

 

[deep]

lemmings will follow a mindless leader over a cliff

Washington recasts terror war as 'struggle'


By Eric Schmitt and Thom Shanker

WEDNESDAY, JULY 27, 2005

WASHINGTON 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.


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."

He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremism, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."


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."


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."


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.
The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.




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. 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.


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."

read for youeself without my highlights

 

[Tilli]

I agree and am sure that it isn't just military action - at least I hope so.

It just frightens me that slogans like "Any Means Necessary" are used. Terrorists are also prepared to use any means necessary in order to get their point across. In both cases innnocent civilians get caught up and I just think we need to be VERY mindful of this before military action is used.

 

[deep]

you folks don't think they tried to do this diplomatically?

they sure fooled you


why is the diplomat, Colin Powell gone

and when Rummy offered his resignation twice,
W did not take it?


Why is someone like Danforth gone from the UN,
a well respected diplomat?

and then they are promoting, Bolton, with the poorest diplomacy skills imaginable?

 

[Numb1075]

Fooled? I don't think so.

u can not rationalize w/ terrorists....diplomacy has been tried and will be tried forever...

sure innocent people will be hurt, but innocent people are already being hurt by the terrorists with each and every attack.

If military action is not needed according to you folks, then what do you suppose we try next?

Hypnotize them?

we have very bright people in our govt agencies and when all is said and done, I think they make sound/moral decisions....not always... but usually.

 

[VertigoGal]

okay, leaving the Iraq war aside...what political, economic, and diplomatic routes should we be taking that we aren't at the moment?

 

[Snowlock]

The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.

Great idea. Why don't you put it this way.... "Please please please mister terrorist, we'll give you anything you want so long as you don't kill us."

 

[BVS]

anyway that will work.....if diplomacy fails and trying to cut off economic suppplies fails, unfortunately it has to be done w/ war.

ANYWAY possible. these are bad people doing bad things.

i was in nyc 9/11 and i have lost friends on that day....that's all the proof that I need to say : "Any Means Necessary"

How have we tried diplomacy, I'd like to see what you are refering to...

You don't kill ideas with war. Their is no one land, one country, or one leader to war with...it's an endless 'war' where you end up just screwing yourself.

 

[melon]

It's called the Bush Administration has long realized that we cannot wage a 50 year "war on terror." Period. We don't have the resources. Period. We've stretched ourselves too thin. Period.

However, the GOP is not prone to back out of something without saving face, so this is the "saving face." This is why our "war on terror" will not extend to nations like Iran, although targeted missile attacks like during the Clinton Administration are likely to make a comeback, I'm sure.

Melon

 

[Snowlock]

How have we tried diplomacy, I'd like to see what you are refering to...

You don't kill ideas with war. Their is no one land, one country, or one leader to war with...it's an endless 'war' where you end up just screwing yourself.

What's your alternative though? By your definition, if there's no one leader, no one country, no one land, who are you supposed to be diplomatic with?

At least this way they know that if they mess with civilized people, they going to pay for it dearly. The message got through to Quadafi and it's getting through to others as well.

 

[Numb1075]

we've been in talks w/ heads of countries that harbor, fund, and aid these terrorists and tried to work with them to sever ties w/ terrorists and/or hand them over. Iraq didn't listen & afghansitan wanted nothing to do with us. i'm sure we've had high level discussions w/ Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Kenya and everywhere else where discussions are needed. I don't exactly get the memos when these meetings are held. I'm confident that we know about 1% of what is actually happening.

it's also a challenge to deal w/ terrorism in general because they don't wear uniforms and come from dozens of countries, and don't announce themselves as terrorists....we've never faced this kind of challenge and there will be times when we stumble or get side tracked.

if the US gov't isn't handling things properly, please enlighten me as to your game plan.

 

[deep]

Numb1075

VertigoGal

Snowlock


Well, you guys don't support the administration?

This is their new campaign.

are you with us or against us?

maybe you are unlawful combatants?


those 1800 dead have taken the game as far as it can go


new election cycle - old dance is a proven loser

you must learn the new dance.

 

[BVS]

What's your alternative though? By your definition, if there's no one leader, no one country, no one land, who are you supposed to be diplomatic with?

At least this way they know that if they mess with civilized people, they going to pay for it dearly. The message got through to Quadafi and it's getting through to others as well.

That's a laugh...yeah we've seen a big backing down tell that to London.

Alternative, find the reasons that these "bad people are doing bad"...

Terrorism will never die, just like racism will never die. But ideas can be controled. The power that racism had in the States 50 years ago doesn't exist today, and war didn't have to be waged.

 

[BVS]

i'm sure we've had high level discussions w/ Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, Kenya and everywhere else where discussions are needed.

I'm glad you have information that the rest of us don't.

 

[Numb1075]

I have my doubts about this current administration but I support my gov't.

although, most US presidents & cabinet members etc from previous eras have had checkered pasts and had some shady scandals as well.

 

[deep]

Fooled? I don't think so.

u can not rationalize w/ terrorists..

I can not.


But, your "restore honor and integrity to the Whitehouse" sack of waste, President sure can.

 

[BVS]

I have my doubts about this current administration but I support my gov't.

That can be a deadly trap my friend.

 

[Rono]

civilized people, .

I guess you did not read newspapers about gitmo, the use of napalm, the use of clusterbombs, torture, killing inocent civlilians. ( sp )




k,.i think economic help, more medical aid to civilans ect. would be a good thing to end the support of *normal* population to the terrorist. Help people to start there own buisness, help developing agryculture ect ( not the Halliburton way )


It will be a very slow proces and one that will cost lives also, but at the end that will be the only sollution.