Global War banned

[Diamond Cross]

More bullshit partisan politics. The only reason to do something like this is out of prejudice. And I don't agree that they're doing this just because they want to avoid catch phrases, I believe they are doing it for political intent.

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.

No more GWOT, House committee decrees - Military News, news from Iraq, photos, reports from the war - Military Times

[6SpeedTA95]

So we're going to cut defense funding? Whats next intelligence funding? So we're gonna repeat the same bullshit that lead to the mess to begin with?

So what are we gonna do? Sit on our asses and wait to be attacked?

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So we're going to cut defense funding? Whats next intelligence funding? So we're gonna repeat the same bullshit that lead to the mess to begin with?

So what are we gonna do? Sit on our asses and wait to be attacked?

nothing like that. They just arent going to call it the GWOT.


double speak to the max

[JaJae]

As long as they don't cut funding, I don't mind. This is good.

[Pro Street]

good.

the phrase is fucking stupid. It's a war against an ideology and by definition would be unwinnable, at least in terms of bullets and bodies.

So it doesn't really belong in a defense budget.

[ballz2wallz]

You'd think the Dems would concentrate on passing laws that actually did something, instead of worrying about whether or not certains phrases were 'liked'.

Our tax dollars at work folks.

[thomez]

Originally Posted by 6SpeedTA95

So we're going to cut defense funding? Whats next intelligence funding? So we're gonna repeat the same bullshit that lead to the mess to begin with?

So what are we gonna do? Sit on our asses and wait to be attacked?

did you read the thread at all or just feel like posting something with an that had no relevance?

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

good.

the phrase is fucking stupid. It's a war against an ideology and by definition would be unwinnable, at least in terms of bullets and bodies.

So it doesn't really belong in a defense budget.

I concur.

[Scrum]

Originally Posted by Pro Street

good.

the phrase is fucking stupid. It's a war against an ideology and by definition would be unwinnable, at least in terms of bullets and bodies.

So it doesn't really belong in a defense budget.

Totally agree.