"The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase "Global War on Terror," a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department's office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation......yada yada yada....'"

I'm glad that all you boys out there that are dropping bombs, passing gas and in general kicking a**, are just out there supporting contingency operations. Maybe I'm being petty about this since its only changing verbage and not whats really going on overseas, but it just seems like another way to down play what the warfighters are doing for us.

I guess they found one more way to reinvent another wheel.

I prefer The War On Terror (T-WOT).

I prefer The War On Terror (T-WOT).

Ummm...it's Total War Against Terror. Jeez, where have you been?

Seriously, just saw on the news that the regime is backing off on this - another unpopular/ridiculous policy, much like the "Vets paying for health care" gem. Supposedly the memo was from a "mid-level funtionary" and does not reflect White House policy. Apparently they "use the term GWOT all the time."

Edited March 25, 200916 yr by Spoo

Ummm...it's Total War Against Terror. Jeez, where have you been?

Seriously, just saw on the news that the regime is backing off on this - another unpopular/ridiculous policy, much like the "Vets paying for health care" gem. Supposedly the memo was from a "mid-level funtionary" and does not reflect White House policy. Apparently they "use the term GWOT all the time."

Is this the same asshole that said the KC-X and future bomber projects were being scrapped? Why are all these wang chungs getting away with letting their ridiculous rumurs leave the WH?

First amendment anyone?

HD

I can't wait to get my OsCO ribbon.

C'mon now, you guys are just picking fights. The "Global War on Terror" has been a scapegoat for getting as much money as you need and the political rights to bomb whomever you want for the last 8 years. It goes right along with the "Axis of Evil" mentality that creates more enemies around the world than it does friends.

I totally agree with hunting down those who attack our people with violent means. But drawing lines in the sand politically only pushes the most important nations away, instead of drawing them in closer for real political dialogue and progressive actions. "My way or the highway" is not a sound political strategy.

C'mon now, you guys are just picking fights. The "Global War on Terror" has been a scapegoat for getting as much money as you need and the political rights to bomb whomever you want for the last 8 years. It goes right along with the "Axis of Evil" mentality that creates more enemies around the world than it does friends.

I totally agree with hunting down those who attack our people with violent means. But drawing lines in the sand politically only pushes the most important nations away, instead of drawing them in closer for real political dialogue and progressive actions. "My way or the highway" is not a sound political strategy.

What color is the sky in your world?

The "Global War on Terror" has been a scapegoat for getting as much money as you need and the political rights to bomb whomever you want for the last 8 years.

"Bomb whomever we want?" Are you serious? What is your alternative mentality? Grab-your-ankles-for-Iran-Obama style?

If we are bombing 'whomever', lets bomb Mexico. give 'em a fresh start.

Can't wait to see the T-WOT medal!

C'mon now, you guys are just picking fights. The "Global War on Terror" has been a scapegoat for getting as much money as you need and the political rights to bomb whomever you want for the last 8 years. It goes right along with the "Axis of Evil" mentality that creates more enemies around the world than it does friends.

I totally agree with hunting down those who attack our people with violent means. But drawing lines in the sand politically only pushes the most important nations away, instead of drawing them in closer for real political dialogue and progressive actions. "My way or the highway" is not a sound political strategy.

Shack.

And besides... who gives a shit what it's called? It's the same thing. Perhaps we should go to Rummy's love child... GSAVE. GWOT is retarded anyway. War on a tactic? Yeah... 'cause they weren't trying to drum up support by appealing to your emotions with that one. /sarcasm

Edited March 25, 200916 yr by Ill Destructor

Shack.

And besides... who gives a shit what it's called? It's the same thing. Perhaps we should go to Rummy's love child... GSAVE. GWOT is retarded anyway. War on a tactic? Yeah... 'cause they weren't trying to drum up support by appealing to your emotions with that one. /sarcasm

"GWOT" always reminded me of the "War on Drugs"--terrible name, sends the exactly wrong message.

-kp

If they change the name can I have another ribbon. Can't get enough of that flare.

As if Overseas Contingency Plan is any more specific to the mission. LOL, what a lame name.

"A Contingency plan is a plan devised for a specific situation when things could go wrong. Contingency plans are often devised by governments or businesses who want to be prepared for anything that could happen." To quote Wikipedia (to which I was redirected to from dictionary.com ... does it make it more legit that way?)

I think global war on terror sends an outward "we're all in this together" message and a "don't ###### with us" message. But hey, spending our time on naming/renaming shit is really worthwhile when the mission stays the same damn thing.

"The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase "Global War on Terror," a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department's office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation......yada yada yada....'"

I like the new name, it will fill more spaces on an OPR and make those 10 bullets that much easier to finish.

Aren't there more important things for a world leader to do besides get all bent out of shape over fncking semantics? Who gives a crap what we refer to it as, we're doing the same thing. Someone is trying to leave their mark by doing something that really doesn't matter, like making curbs higher or painting all the buildings brown. Can anyone in leadership focus on what really matters?

C'mon now, you guys are just picking fights. The "Global War on Terror" has been a scapegoat for getting as much money as you need and the political rights to bomb whomever you want for the last 8 years. It goes right along with the "Axis of Evil" mentality that creates more enemies around the world than it does friends.

I totally agree with hunting down those who attack our people with violent means. But drawing lines in the sand politically only pushes the most important nations away, instead of drawing them in closer for real political dialogue and progressive actions. "My way or the highway" is not a sound political strategy.

Shack.

And besides... who gives a shit what it's called? It's the same thing. Perhaps we should go to Rummy's love child... GSAVE. GWOT is retarded anyway. War on a tactic? Yeah... 'cause they weren't trying to drum up support by appealing to your emotions with that one. /sarcasm

Shack?

Please. I agree that naming is irrelevent, but painting a foreign affairs picture with such a broad brush is narrow-minded and almost dangerous. The liberal approach (liberal in the int. relations context - not American politics) has been tried before and it's wishful thinking. It assumes that all countries will act as rational actors and work for the same goal - some weird international utopia. Let's inject a little reality here, the playing field is not level. Approaches that are effective with 1st world "western" nations, will not work with 2nd and 3rd world nations (meaning poor in wealth and resources). Nations like that want their piece of the pie, usually without giving up a damn thing. They want to be an equal, a player. Example: Iran. They want the bomb - period. Nukes are their way of becoming a big kid on the block. If you think that playing nice and opening a line of reasonable discourse with Tehran is going to change that desire, you need to pull your head out of your ass. Diplomacy may get them to talk nice to you and about you, but behind the scenes, they're doing whatever the hell they want. Do you honestly think that "important" countries like Russia, Korea, Iran, etc. won't use "progressive" American diplomacy to their advantage? While diplomacy has its place, carrying a big stick (threatening overwhelming force) is going to keep the peace. So fine, let's sit around and play nice. Maybe the rest of the world will even "like us" again. But when Iran ends up with the Bomb after a few years, I'll say I told you so.

Out.

This is right along the lines of drumming up new uniforms, changing slogans and other useless things. Getting rid of the term GWOT won't do anything. Hopefully this isn't the kind of leadership we'll be seeing over the next four years.

So since it's not a war anymore does that mean you can PCS to the AOR?

Shack?

Please. I agree that naming is irrelevent, but painting a foreign affairs picture with such a broad brush is narrow-minded and almost dangerous. The liberal approach (liberal in the int. relations context - not American politics) has been tried before and it's wishful thinking. It assumes that all countries will act as rational actors and work for the same goal - some weird international utopia. Let's inject a little reality here, the playing field is not level. Approaches that are effective with 1st world "western" nations, will not work with 2nd and 3rd world nations (meaning poor in wealth and resources). Nations like that want their piece of the pie, usually without giving up a damn thing. They want to be an equal, a player. Example: Iran. They want the bomb - period. Nukes are their way of becoming a big kid on the block. If you think that playing nice and opening a line of reasonable discourse with Tehran is going to change that desire, you need to pull your head out of your ass. Diplomacy may get them to talk nice to you and about you, but behind the scenes, they're doing whatever the hell they want. Do you honestly think that "important" countries like Russia, Korea, Iran, etc. won't use "progressive" American diplomacy to their advantage? While diplomacy has its place, carrying a big stick (threatening overwhelming force) is going to keep the peace. So fine, let's sit around and play nice. Maybe the rest of the world will even "like us" again. But when Iran ends up with the Bomb after a few years, I'll say I told you so.

Out.

Your points make sense but you offer no alternative. We tried the sanctions-isolation-big stick method with North Korea and what happened...they got nukes. If you say diplomacy doesn't work than what does work? I say try direct diplomacy, maintain the big stick (so to speak) of military power, work regional alliances and organizations (NATO, AU, OPEC, etc.), harass them at the UN, use targeted sanctions, all of it. Diplomacy and military power are not an either/or choice...it's possible to use all the foreign policy tools in our bag at the same time in order to try to meet our objectives.

So since it's not a war anymore does that mean you can PCS to the AOR?

There are already folks doing 1 year remotes in the AOR. They're not on contingency orders, they're on PCS orders.

I guess alot of you are missing the difference between military operations and international politics.

There are already folks doing 1 year remotes in the AOR. They're not on contingency orders, they're on PCS orders.

Hmmmm, I'm on CED orders...

Hmmmm, I'm on CED orders...

Are the folks doing 1 years at the deid on CED? If so I stand corrected.