Cornelius Fudge Says : No Global War on Terrorism

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

No more GWOT, House committee decrees
By Rick Maze - Staff writer
Posted : Wednesday Apr 4, 2007 16:11:56 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.

Linky

[DinoDoc]

“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.

Imran?

[GePap]

Good. That phrase is utter ****, and the sooner we stop muttering that lie, the better.

[DinoDoc]

Pfff.

While the "War on Drugs" exists, I fail to see the fuss over the phrase "War on Terror."

[GePap]

Both phrases should be dumped, they are both idiotic.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Good. That phrase is utter ****, and the sooner we stop muttering that lie, the better.

actually they havent said the WOT doesnt exist, they just dont want to use it in budget documents, cause its a colloquilism. Also perhaps cause they dont want to get into questions of whether or not an expenditure on Iraq is part of the WOT or not.

The Repubs have jumped on this as denial that the WOT exists, but thats just Repub blarney.

Nobody mainstream denied the cold war existed, but nobody put it into DOD budget docs, AFAIK.

[SlowwHand]

I don't know why you say that, but the name means nada.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


actually they havent said the WOT doesnt exist, they just dont want to use it in budget documents, cause its a colloquilism. Also perhaps cause they dont want to get into questions of whether or not an expenditure on Iraq is part of the WOT or not.

The Repubs have jumped on this as denial that the WOT exists, but thats just Repub blarney.

Nobody mainstream denied the cold war existed, but nobody put it into DOD budget docs, AFAIK.

Then both parties are still living in a costly and moronic fantasy land. The "war on terror" is a fiction, a bad and expensive and costly one at that, and sadly for us, it is being waged by a bunch of ideological midgets whose incompetence has been gigantic.

[lord of the mark]

besides, didnt the admin already decide to call it Gsave? The global struggle against violent extremism?

[SlowwHand]

They should call it "Cntl-Alt-Del" and all that implies.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Then both parties are still living in a costly and moronic fantasy land. The "war on terror" is a fiction, a bad and expensive and costly one at that, and sadly for us, it is being waged by a bunch of ideological midgets whose incompetence has been gigantic.

If we called it the "War on al qaeeda and its violent Salafist allies, alongside a struggle against other terrorist groups that are opposed to our interestd and our allies's existence, like Hamas and Hezbollah" it would smell just as sweet. If you for one moment thought that Dem party had suddenly decided to soften its position on Hamas and Hezb, reaffirmed by Ms Pelosi in her current trip, than YOU are an idiot.

[SlowwHand]

It's then, not than. In your use, it's then.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
It's then, not than. In your use, it's then.

it must be clear by now, I play fast and loose with spelling, capitalization, etc, when posting on the interweb. I will edit carefully the moment Im paid for my posts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


If we called it the "War on al qaeeda and its violent Salafist allies, alongside a struggle against other terrorist groups that are opposed to our interestd and our allies's existence, like Hamas and Hezbollah" it would smell just as sweet. If you for one moment thought that Dem party had suddenly decided to soften its position on Hamas and Hezb, reaffirmed by Ms Pelosi in her current trip, than YOU are an idiot.

I don't even know where to start with this crap, I really don't.

To link our policy vs. global salafist groups and lump with with our policy towards Lebanon (and Hezbollah) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and Hamas) is part of the incompetence that is making everything worse.

To view those two groups as the same thing as AQ is part of why this phrase is so stupid and should be removed. Sadly people who think like you are the ones formulating policy. We can see how succesful they have been in Iraq. Yeah, lets spread that policy....

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pfff.

While the "War on Drugs" exists, I fail to see the fuss over the phrase "War on Terror."

So ... the one idiocy excuses the other one?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




I don't even know where to start with this crap, I really don't.

To link our policy vs. global salafist groups and lump with with our policy towards Lebanon (and Hezbollah) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (and Hamas) is part of the incompetence that is making everything worse.

To view those two groups as the same thing as AQ is part of why this phrase is so stupid and should be removed. Sadly people who think like you are the ones formulating policy. We can see how succesful they have been in Iraq. Yeah, lets spread that policy....

An Hamas is not the same as Hezb, and the taliban are not the same as AQ, and the GPSC is not the same as AQ, etc. HOwever for the US to legitimize some forms of radical Islamist terrorism while demonizing others, would lead to many contradictions in our policy. Even the Europeans have come to acknowledge this.

And again, many folks who opposed the war on Iraq support the rejection of Hamas and Hezb as long as they fail to renounce terrorism. So thats just a red herring, and a diversion from the issue at hand.

Again, what gave you the idea that the Dems had softened on Hamas?

[lord of the mark]

http://www.nysun.com/article/50846

Obama Rebuffs Soros
Billionaire's Comments on Aipac Are Scored

By ELI LAKE
Staff Reporter of the Sun
March 21, 2007

WASHINGTON — Leading Democrats, including Senator Obama of Illinois, are distancing themselves from an essay published this week by one of their party's leading financiers that called for the Democratic Party to "liberate" itself from the influence of the pro-Israel lobby.

The article, by George Soros, published in the New York Review of Books, asserts that America should pressure Israel to negotiate with the Hamas-led unity government in the Palestinian territories regardless of whether Hamas recognizes the right of the Jewish state to exist. Mr. Soros goes on to say that one reason America has not embraced this policy is because of the influence of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Yesterday, Mr. Obama's presidential campaign issued a dissent from the Hungarian-born billionaire's assessment. " Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. The U.S. and our allies are right to insist that Hamas — a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's destruction — meet very basic conditions before being treated as a legitimate actor. AIPAC is one of many voices that share this view

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Again, what gave you the idea that the Dems had softened on Hamas?

What is wrong with you? Really? Shoiuld I ask that in the other thread?

1. I am a democrat.
2. You brought up Hamas and Hizbollah, not I. I simply stated my support for dropping this moronic phrase.

An Hamas is not the same as Hezb, and the taliban are not the same as AQ, and the GPSC is not the same as AQ, etc. HOwever for the US to legitimize some forms of radical Islamist terrorism while demonizing others, would lead to many contradictions in our policy. Even the Europeans have come to acknowledge this.

When dealing with different things, different policies are good. Contradictions would only exist if you are foolish enough to try to lump non-related issues together.

The fact two groups are Muslims and carry out terrorist attacks does not make them both "Islamist Terrorists." There is a fundamental difference between groups that have global idological aspirations and groups that don't. Trying to set up an Islamic state for your own people is different from trying to set up an Islamic state for everyone including non-Muslims. Treating both equally is a huge mistake. Better contradictions than hypocrasy.

Also, Europe "following the US lead" had not lead to any improvement in any policy, nor has it weakened Hezbollah or Hamas, or helped in general.

And again, many folks who opposed the war on Iraq support the rejection of Hamas and Hezb as long as they fail to renounce terrorism. So thats just a red herring, and a diversion from the issue at hand.

As noted above, your attempt to link policy in Lebanon and in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with the nebolous fight against AQ and it cells is part and parcel of why this phrase is moronic, and why the less we use it, the better.

Are you able to understand that?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
So ... the one idiocy excuses the other one?

Focusing on the newly created idiocy, while ignoring the long lived one seems stupid.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Focusing on the newly created idiocy, while ignoring the long lived one seems stupid.

Start a thread about "the war and drugs" and I shall happily denigrate the term.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

When dealing with different things, different policies are good.

different policies are required in dealing with AQ vs dealing with the Taliban. which in turn are diff from those required for dealing with Hekmatya. Should we not refer to the "War in afghanistan" for that reason? A war should be capable of encompassing diff policies.

Contradictions would only exist if you are foolish enough to try to lump non-related issues together.

The fact two groups are Muslims and carry out terrorist attacks does not make them both "Islamist Terrorists." There is a fundamental difference between groups that have global idological aspirations and groups that don't. Trying to set up an Islamic state for your own people is different from trying to set up an Islamic state for everyone including non-Muslims. Treating both equally is a huge mistake. Better contradictions than hypocrasy.

there differences, and similarities. There are probably similar roots, in the failure of secularist ideologies, embrace of religious violence and suicide, etc, etc.

Also, Europe "following the US lead" had not lead to any improvement in any policy, nor has it weakened Hezbollah or Hamas, or helped in general.

It has almost certainly weakened Hamas. And it has put considerable pressure on Syria.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


What is wrong with you? Really? Shoiuld I ask that in the other thread?

Ask whatever you like. Be as boorish as you want. Your favorite philosopher seemed to think that a superior avenue to truth. I find its not.

[GePap]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by GePap

different policies are required in dealing with AQ vs dealing with the Taliban. which in turn are diff from those required for dealing with Hekmatya. Should we not refer to the "War in afghanistan" for that reason? A war should be capable of encompassing diff policies.

The phrases are NOT similar. "War in Afghanistan" denotes the location of a conflict. "War on terrorism" denotes some amorphous struggle against a notion.

there differences, and similarities. There are probably similar roots, in the failure of secularist ideologies, embrace of religious violence and suicide, etc, etc.

The difference in goals are sufficiently great for a different policy to be called for. Just like the US had a different policy with Communist China and the Communist Soviet Union.

It has almost certainly weakened Hamas. And it has put considerable pressure on Syria.

Hamas is still in charge of most of the Palestinian government. As for Syria, France's pro-Lebanon policy had more to do with particular French interests in Lebanon than some acceptance of US lead.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Ask whatever you like. Be as boorish as you want. Your favorite philosopher seemed to think that a superior avenue to truth. I find its not.

Unlike you, I don't like to spam with irrelevant crap.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by GePap
Good. That phrase is utter ****, and the sooner we stop muttering that lie, the better.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by GePap

The difference in goals are sufficiently great for a different policy to be called for. Just like the US had a different policy with Communist China and the Communist Soviet Union.

and in case you havent noticed, our policy towards Hamas IS different from that toward AQ. WRT to Hmas we have specific conditions for recognition, and maintain a financial and diplo boycott. WRT to AQ we have no intention of recognizing them under any conditions, and are engaged in global violent conflict with them.

However we must formulate policies to address the deeper issues that lie at the root of both phenomena. Just as during the cold war, while adopting different policies on China and the USSR, we ultimately came to realize a need to advance democracy and market development, a strategy that was not specific to the USSR alone.

hamas is still in charge of most of the Palestinian government. As for Syria, France's pro-Lebanon policy had more to do with particular French interests in Lebanon than some acceptance of US lead.

hamas is, nonetheless, weakened relative to where it was when the boycott began.

Syria is under pressure from the entire EU, and not just France. The positions of the UK and Germany have as much to do with their opposition to terrorism as to concern for Paris' position in Lebanon.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Unlike you, I don't like to spam with irrelevant crap.

if you feel what I post is not relevant, you are free to ignore it. Or to simply state that its irrelevant. I dont find all your posts relevant, but I try to refrain from getting personal about it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
and in case you havent noticed, our policy towards Hamas IS different from that toward AQ. WRT to Hmas we have specific conditions for recognition, and maintain a financial and diplo boycott. WRT to AQ we have no intention of recognizing them under any conditions, and are engaged in global violent conflict with them.

Fine. Thus is is idiotic to call our policy with Hamas part of some "war on terror." Therefore more reason to drop the phrase as I advocate.

However we must formulate policies to address the deeper issues that lie at the root of both phenomena. Just as during the cold war, while adopting different policies on China and the USSR, we ultimately came to realize a need to advance democracy and market development, a strategy that was not specific to the USSR alone.

The phrase "war on terror" ignores the reality that one can't spread democratic ideals with military force, and that alliences with dictatorships, actively advocating abuses of human rights, and belittling diplomacy are ways to fail in trying to spread democratic ideals to deal with the underlying problems, and therefore one more reason to drop the phrase as I advocate.

hamas is, nonetheless, weakened relative to where it was when the boycott began.

All Palestinian factions are weaker, including Fatah. And Hamas has not budged on its positions, and the peace process remains stalled without pressure from the outside for the parties to meet. Yeah.....

Syria is under pressure from the entire EU, and not just France. The positions of the UK and Germany have as much to do with their opposition to terrorism as to concern for Paris' position in Lebanon.

Pressure towards what exactly? I have seen no change in Syrian policy since the withdrawal from Lebanon.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


if you feel what I post is not relevant, you are free to ignore it. Or to simply state that its irrelevant. I dont find all your posts relevant, but I try to refrain from getting personal about it.

I honestly find your obsession with this whole issue of the Democratic party and policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict weird, or your need to post something about Obama distancing himself from Soros in a thread about the phrase war on terror.