War on Terror Officially Over!!!!

Shaun @ Tru6 · 05:42 AM

Now, it would seem, we are at war with words, nothing new there I suppose. For all you following along, we've got: "is," "last throes," "not free," "covert" and now we're redefining war. These guys are good!

I just wonder how all those guys in the field feel about dying in a struggle. or the families of fallen servicemen.

Instead of soldier's names inscribed in granite as in the Vietnam War Memorial, what will they get? Handwritten notes under the title "Struggle Against Violent Extremism, Iraq Theatre."

Our Military deserves better from our Administration. And you thought the Press was demoralizing.

Very long article, here's the link:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/07/26/news/terror.php

Donny's speech referenced: http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2005/sp20050525-secdef1461.html

Here's the intro:

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."

cool_chick · 07-27-2005, 05:40 AM

Think they'll change the term "domestic terrorist" to "domestic global extremist, enemy of freedom"?

Mr Beau · 07-27-2005, 06:06 AM

How about incorporating something simple like "evil doers" or "bad guys". So it's the Struggle against Extremist Evil Doers and Freedom Bad Guys.

techweenie · techweenie's Garage

Gosh, howzabout if we just start with a 'war against Bin Ladin?' Remember that guy?

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-27-2005, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by techweenie
Gosh, howzabout if we just start with a 'war against Bin Ladin?' Remember that guy?

Geez, you're up early! Clearly haven't had any coffee, 'cause of course you know that this isn't about getting bin Laden, the guy responsible for 3,000 dead Americans and a $300B hit to our economy. It's not about the leadership of Al Qaeda, but rather fighting the footsoldiers. Why bush doesn't even think about bin Laden anymore. I have heard him say that he thinks about the war in Iraq a lot though.

that is comforting.

EDIT: Sorry, strike war in Iraq, change to struggle against violent extremists.

Are there non-violent extremist?

gavinlit · 07-27-2005, 06:35 AM

Non-violent extremist = pacifist? Maybe?

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

heh... hmm...

lendaddy · 07-27-2005, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Geez, you're up early! Clearly haven't had any coffee, 'cause of course you know that this isn't about getting bin Laden, the guy responsible for 3,000 dead Americans and a $300B hit to our economy. It's not about the leadership of Al Qaeda, but rather fighting the footsoldiers. Why bush doesn't even think about bin Laden anymore. I have heard him say that he thinks about the war in Iraq a lot though.

So for you.....this is all about revenge. Just kill his asss and move on with life as normal?

IROC · IROC's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Are there non-violent extremist?

Tibetan monks. Those guys are wild. :>)

lendaddy · 07-27-2005, 07:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IROC
Tibetan monks. Those guys are wild. :>)

They throw crazy keggers, I can attest to that.

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-27-2005, 07:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
So for you.....this is all about revenge. Just kill his asss and move on with life as normal?

Did you hit your head?

Moses · 07-27-2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
So for you.....this is all about revenge. Just kill his asss and move on with life as normal?

Len, that would suit me just fine. But seriously, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? It's tremendously costly in terms of $, lives and world opinion. Sure Saddam was a miscreant, but he was no "direct threat". If we follow W's logic, surely Iran and Saudi Arabia are on the list.

lendaddy · 07-27-2005, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Did you hit your head?

Yes, why?

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-27-2005, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
Yes, why?

Because I rely on you for intelligent posts from the far right. to say we shouldn't go after bin Laden is comical on at least 10 different levels. this is something bryan might have said. of course he did weigh in.

lendaddy · 07-27-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Because I rely on you for intelligent posts from the far right. to say we shouldn't go after bin Laden is comical on at least 10 different levels. this is something bryan might have said. of course he did weigh in.

I said nothing of the sort, it will be a good day when he dies but he's already dead as a functioning leader.

Maybe there is strategy in this, no one will step up and replace him while he's alive and currently he's nutless. I mean we're not privy to all intel decisions

djmcmath · 07-27-2005, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moses
... Iran and Saudi Arabia are on the list.

And so are Syria, Egypt, Botswana, and Thailand. Oh, and we need to invade Ireland, too, to ensure stability in the world's supply of Guinness, while we're at it. Whee!!!!

Shaun @ Tru6 · 07-27-2005, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by lendaddy
I said nothing of the sort, it will be a good day when he dies but he's already dead as a functioning leader.

Oh man, you've been listening to Rush too much. I weep for you.

lendaddy · 07-27-2005, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shaun 84 Targa
Oh man, you've been listening to Rush too much. I weep for you.

I don't think I have......I mean I've been aweful busy installing my new hardwood floors, and shopping for my new select comfort sleep-by-number bed

bryanthompson · bryanthompson's Garage

You don't hear all of those annoying commercials if you're a 24/7 subscriber, lenn

azasadny · azasadny's Garage

We're not losing in Iraq, we're just in a "deferred success phase"...