Britain Drops 'War on Terror' Label

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Where in the phrase "war on terror" does the word soldier occur?

Well it seems to imply soldiers and battlefields doesn't it? Regardless of it being used for drugs and whatnot, when you say war, people think armies.

Not if you grew up during the cold war, necessarily.

Besides, there ARE battlefields in Afghanistan, where there are pretty much conventional firefights. Theres also urban fighting, mines, and covert activities etc - as there was during WW2.

And there are places with similar mixes, including the conventional battlefields, in places where we dont have troops directly engaged, but we support allies in more or less overt ways - Somalia where we support the Ethiopians and the govt against the Islamic Courts, in North Africa where we support various North african and Sahel militaries against AQ in North Africa. Lebanon, where we supported the Leb Army against an AQ affilliate in one of the refugee camps. In Yemen, in the Phillipines, and more quietly, in Pakistan.

Now we can arbitrarily pretend theres no linkage between those struggles. We can call it a War on Al Qaeeda to avoid the overtones of civilizational war, though that doesnt change the use of the term "war" and it also tends to make people hung up on the actual affiliation of each group ("were those guys in Leb REALLY AQ affiliates, or were they Syrian backed?") We can do what the Pentagon has done, call it GSAVE, pretend its not a "war" despite some poor GI in Khost doing stuff at a firebase that seems very much like "war", or whatever. Pretending you can stop a group of Taliban consisting of 100 guys (who arent "soldiers" casuse they dont wear proper uniforms, and are irregularly organized) with automatic weapons, RPGs and mortars from taking over a village in Helmand by filing legal briefs in Glasqow, or that it matters whether that you call what you do to those 100 guys "an act against criminals" rather than a war, well, I suppose that matters to some people.

"So Romeo would, were he not Romeo called ....."

[Wezil]

I think it's a phrase that has lost meaning with overuse.

War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on Fat
War on Smoking
War on Drunk Driving

Yada, yada



Edit - War on Poverty

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wezil
I think it's a phrase that has lost meaning with overuse.

War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on Fat
War on Smoking
War on Drunk Driving

Yada, yada



Edit - War on Poverty

Not to mention war on the Zulus, Seminole War, Creek war, Soccer war, Falklands war.

The word war has definitely been used far too much, these last few thousand years. Mainly cause there have been too many.

[Wezil]

But it went from military meaning (as Imran was arguing) to a phrase for social causes. Completely different usage now than in the previous few thousand years.

[lord of the mark]

Actually Ive never heard of the war on fat, war on drunk driving, etc.


The war on poverty was purely a metaphor, though a largely successful one depending on who you read and what social programs you included.

War on drugs, I suppose, feels a lot like a war when youre flying a chopper in Bolivia or working undercover for the DEA.

War on terror has a lot more in common with the military wars, than it does with the war on poverty. Sure, the other side doesnt wear proper uniforms - did the Seminoles? Maybe they did, but I dont think anyone cared at the time as far as calling it a war.

Again, it seems a lot of folks would have rather called it "War on AQ" rather than war on terror, so that it would express less hostility to Iran-Syria-Hezbolla-Hamas.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Wezil
War on Terror
War on Drugs
War on Fat
War on Smoking
War on Drunk Driving
... War on Poverty

Notice something about all these "wars?" They're wars which can never be won. We will never completely do away with terrorism, with drug use, with over eating, with tobacco, with driving drunk or with poverty.

We should have a policy of opposing these things and reducing them as much as possible, but we should reserve the word "war" to those opponents who are tangible and who can be defeated: the Kaiser, the Nazis, the Soviets, and al Qaeda.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Notice something about all these "wars?" They're wars which can never be won. We will never completely do away with terrorism, with drug use, with over eating, with tobacco, with driving drunk or with poverty.

We should have a policy of opposing these things and reducing them as much as possible, but we should reserve the word "war" to those opponents who are tangible and who can be defeated: the Kaiser, the Nazis, the Soviets, and al Qaeda.

We called World War 2 a war on aggression. We managed to win it, despite it "aggression" being something difficult to banish from this world.

We used it cause "War on Nazism" would have had too many difficulties - what about Japan, Italy, Germanys other allies. What if the German regime had changed and dropped the central role of the Nazi party, but had attempted to keep its conquests (in the USSR they just called it "The Great Patriotic War")

We could call this the war on Al Qaeeda. Think of all the complications - the taliban isnt actually AQ, for example, the degree of real control AQ has over its global affiliates is disputed. In many places there are shadowy linkages between AQ and other radical Sunni fundamentalist groups.

And youd STILL have lawyers like IS, pointing out that its not a "war" anyway.

[TheStinger]

It's the term war on terror that is not being used, we are still in Afghan fighting a war against the Taliban.

In the UK the term is seen in a poor light because it's associated with good ol George.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by TheStinger
It's the term war on terror that is not being used, we are still in Afghan fighting a war against the Taliban.

In the UK the term is seen in a poor light because it's associated with good ol George.

So the war in Afghanistan is the "war against the Taliban"? Fine by me. Hekmatyar isnt too active in Helmand, so you shouldnt have too many problems with that. And you seem to be okay with calling it war, despite the Taliban not being "soldiers" under international law.

I think your second paragraph is spot on. Lots of reaction to the term is based on emotional reactions to W.

So far only Edwards has explicitly said he wont use the term though, I dont know if y'all will change your mind if and when President Rodham Clinton says "war on terror". If she does. I dont know if she'll keep the current DoD term, GSAVE. On the one hand thats ALSO a a legacy of the Bush admin. OTOH changing again is silly. And the Dems havent acknowledged the massive shift in POV in the Bush admin when Rummy left. OTOH neither have the Republicans.