War on Terror is Wrong - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2005, 08:13 AM   #1
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:42 PM
War on Terror is Wrong

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

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 08:40 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 12:42 AM
__________________

__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 08:43 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Tilli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 6,500
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Perhaps someone should tell George Bush and Tony Blair that as they don't seem to get it.
__________________
Tilli is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:01 AM   #4
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 07:42 PM
you folks don't think they tried to do this diplomatically?
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:07 AM   #5
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 07:42 PM
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.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:11 AM   #6
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 240
Local Time: 12:42 AM
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
__________________
flangerchorus is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:13 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Thank you flangerchorus
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:14 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 12:42 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by 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
fine, chop down the tree. but how should you get rid of the roots?
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:20 AM   #9
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 07:42 PM
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"
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:58 AM   #10
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:42 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
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
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 10:59 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:42 PM
Re: War on Terror is Wrong

Quote:
Originally posted by deep
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?
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 11:15 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Tilli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 6,500
Local Time: 12:42 AM
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?
__________________
Tilli is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 11:28 AM   #13
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Numb1075's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Tarrytown, NY
Posts: 11,382
Local Time: 07:42 PM
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.
__________________
Numb1075 is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 11:49 AM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:42 PM
lemmings will follow a mindless leader over a cliff

Quote:
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
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 07-27-2005, 11:51 AM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Tilli's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 6,500
Local Time: 12:42 AM
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.
__________________

__________________
Tilli is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com