Is there still a “war on terror”? President Obama has given mixed messages on this. A couple weeks ago the President declared the “War On Terror” over. The Obama administration called the shooting at Ft. Hood “workplace violence” even though Hasan yelled Allahu Akbar before going on his shooting rampage at the military base. Nidal Hasan plans to argue that the shooting was in defense of the Taliban. Sound like terrorism, anyone? From the beginning the Obama administration has renamed the “Global War On Terror” Overseas Contingency Operations. I guess the peace prize president didn’t want to sound warlike. Or something like that. On the other hand President Obama sent drones overseas to pick off terrorists, among them were four Americans.
Now we have a huge NSA leak which revealed spying on the American people on a massive scale. Is the guy who leaked this information a traitor or a patriot? If the spying domestically on this massive scale violates our privacy rights and is unjust then I consider the guy to be a patriot. Now citizens can have an important conversation as to security versus privacy, and how much of our privacy should we be willing to give up for national security purposes. If the “war on terror” is over why has Obama doubled down on and expanded Bush’s policies?
Crossposted @ Catholibertarian
17 comments:
Labeling is irrelevant. There really isn't a 'war on terror' anymore than there is a 'war on poverty' or a 'war on women'. Wars on ideas and tactics are poor rhetorical devices.
That being said, Overseas Contingency Operations [OCO] is at least a more appropriate label. OCO funding is what is used to fight our wars, and the OCO paradigm has existed for decades. It's only now that the name is being used as yet another rhetorical bludgeon, in lieu of the merits of the issue.
Wouldn't you say a war on terror is similar to a war on Nazism? Wars on ideas or tactics makes sense when you are talking about stopping evil acts that occurred in WWII or similar acts. People are classified by the acts they do (at least in some cases). Even those who steal are called thieves.
I see the term/phrase Overseas Contingency Operations as being politically correct. Jihadists cause terror and do acts of terrorism so I see no problem with the saying war on terror. Is OCO used to fund operations overseas underneath the Defense Dept.? You said for decades. Never heard of it until recently. But OCO doesn't recognize who the enemy is. I think Overseas Operations Fighting Jihadists Acts of Terrorism as being more appropriate or something like that. War on terror sure is easier to say. And I'm sure we all know what it means, what it's referring to.
We didn't declare war on Nazism. We declared war on Germany. When people steal, would we have a war on thievery? Not to mention all of the other inane applications of this term.
You may consider OCO to be politically correct, but I'm not at all sure why. It is functionally correct. A more concise breakdown of what OCO goes to can be found here:
https://secureweb2.hqda.pentagon.mil/vdas_armyposturestatement/2010/addenda/Addendum_D-The%20Fiscal%20Year%202011%20Presidents%20Budget.asp
The link is safe, it goes to DoD.
OCO doesn't have to recognize who the enemy is, we at least have the AUMF for that, other than common knowledge. Considering that the "GWOT" is actually comprises very little in the way of fighting terrorist groups [with the two instances of nation building since 9/11], the term means even less now than when it was christened.
Actually we invaded a number of places before we entered Germany. But we went into Germany, other places, and fought Germany's allies because of Nazism. Besides the bombing at Pearl Harbor Nazism was the reason we entered Germany and some of the other countries. Hitler was the head of both Germany and the Nazis and if he had died, yet other persons had continued to be threats and spread across the globe it would similar to the war on terror today, or our fight against terrorism.
Germany declared war on the US immediately following the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We declared war on Germany immediately after that.
Nazism was irrelevant.
"Nazism was irrelevant."
For you to say that is absurd. If Hitler hadn't rose to power and had concentration camps across Germany, Poland, etc. then there would have been no need for the U.S. to declare war on Germany. Nazism was the ideological force behind the concentration camps. Roosevelt spoke out against Nazism and that is one of the reasons Hitler hated the United States and declared war on us.
In addition, the United States gave assistance to its allies during WWII, before the U.S. entered the war. The purpose before and after the U.S. entered the war was to defeat Germany.
Italy and Japan supported Germany's war efforts and that included Germany's expansion of Nazism.
"The purpose before and after the U.S. entered the war was to defeat Germany."
Exactly. Germany....not the ideology.
And we entered the war in the ETO after Germany declared war on the US.
Two fundamental facts refute your assertion. The first is that Nazism is not illegal in the US, and the second is that nobody has ever used the term 'war on Nazism'.
Back to the original point, what does inventing a logically inappropriate name for a campaign do for you exactly....as opposed to the functionally accurate? For you to find a 'war on terror' to be etymologically sound, you would have to find the same for the 'war on women', the 'war on poverty', the 'war on drugs', etc.
How is the militarily correct name for this campaign 'politically correct'....when calling it the 'war on terror' is politically correct as well?
PC exists on both sides of the political spectrum.
But apart of defeating Nazism in Germany - the removal of concentration camps and to save lives in those camps which weren't already killed. Yes, the U.S. allows people to believe in Nazism but it doesn't allow those people to act on their Nazi beliefs by killing Jews, others, or violating laws to further their agenda.
On to your other point.
We are fighting a war against terrorists and their causing terror and committing terrorism so IMO that makes some sense. Plus, I don't see it as being politically correct. At least the name. The way the war was carried out may have been politically correct.
Doesn't it depend more on the ideas behind the various wars, there purposes and how effective they are as opposed to putting so much weight on the legitimacy or the etymology of a name? I do agree that the name is important to an extent. Maybe Overseas Contingency Operations isn't politically correct but it seems like it to me after hearing the phrase war on terror for so long. To me war on terror seems more appropriate since I believe we are fighting a war against Muslim Jihad/Jihadist terror or terrorism. Actually neither phrase sounds 100% correct to me.
"Yes, the U.S. allows people to believe in Nazism but it doesn't allow those people to act on their Nazi beliefs by killing Jews, others, or violating laws to further their agenda."
Yet this is how it can't be analogous to a 'war on terror'. We didn't enter the war against Germany [after the fact] to stamp out a belief system, but to halt the corollary actions. We weren't fighting a war against Japan but calling it a 'war on Bushido'.
"Doesn't it depend more on the ideas behind the various wars, there purposes and how effective they are as opposed to putting so much weight on the legitimacy or the etymology of a name?"
Yes. Which was sort of my original point. Too many people seem to use the GWOT/OCO naming convention as merely a partisan bludgeon against an Administration they oppose...without understanding any reasoning behind it.
I do understand how the name resonates, I don't pretend not to....but at it's core we're publicly stating that we're fighting a not against a particular enemy, but a tactic. For me this makes as much sense as saying we're in a war against ambushes, or explosives.
Perhaps this was all a sop to our lazy, soundbite media, 'GWOT' rolls off the tongue easier than a 'war on al Qaeda and Affiliated Movements [AQAM]'.
I don't think we disagree that much here Constitutional Insurgent.
With that said, the corollary actions committed by the Nazis were an integral part of Nazism or the Nazi belief system and that is why I still hold that we declared war on Germany to stop Nazism, at least the extreme actions carried out by that belief system. I know we didn't go there to stamp out the thinking but we did go there to stop the actions of Nazism.
Regardless of the name of the war or operation I disagree with how Obama is handling the operation to stop jihadists. And how he has expanded it to the detriment of citizens.
"Perhaps this was all a sop to our lazy, soundbite media, 'GWOT' rolls off the tongue easier than a 'war on al Qaeda and Affiliated Movements [AQAM]'"
So true. Your phrase is definitely more appropriate.
"....that we declared war on Germany to stop Nazism."
And that pesky - 'they declared war on us first business'. :)
"Regardless of the name of the war or operation I disagree with how Obama is handling the operation to stop jihadists."
Concur, though I've disagreed with our strategy since 2002.
The Boy King is confused about everything except communism ... now that he loves and believes in.
Constitutional Insurgent,
I think it makes a difference that the U.S. aided allies prior to us officially entering the war. From my reading, it sounds like Roosevelt wanted to enter sooner but citizens weren't for entering the war.
I've reassessed my positions on various issues since 2008.
Oh yeah Odie!
"I've reassessed my positions on various issues since 2008."
What changed your positions in 2008?
FYI, the link to Catholibertarian brings up a malware alert on my browser.
Post a Comment