Or war on "global terrorism." Instead, the only acceptable term is "War with Al Qeda." "The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism." On changing the description..."no specific directive had come from the White House itself." Should we keep it broad or does narrowing the focus to war with AQ leave us better off in the long run? "You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said. " <---Agreed. [Insert Obligatory] "Obama supports terrorism." Link
Yes it is smart. E.g. the opposite of this would be if they said a "War against Arabs." Specifying Al Qaeda is as plain English as it gets- and given the propaganda wars any language enhancements do help.
The War on Terror is a meaningless phrase. The War against the Terrorist who mean us harm is too cumbersome. I think separating how we label conflicts by the objective of the conflict is a good idea. We have a War Against Al qaeda, Afghanstan fits under that label fine.
did we get hit again on our soil? ------------------------------------------------------ No, once was enough while George was in charge.
How about "the war on Gog and Magog?" According to Chirac, that is what W told him this was all about.
I don't have a problem with this. Obviously, the question of Taliban vs Al Qaeda is an issue, and there is some symbolism in the decision to change. Years ago, I said this would resemble the American "Indian" wars more than anything else. Ultimately the way to win is to starve them out, more than just beating them mano a mano.
I will start off very objective..... The Middle East issue, terroists, AQ, Tali, Hezbo, Iranian whatever you call them has been going on for thousands of years. Not very many people, in the government or in the populace had a problem in 2002 and 2003. It was told to us, it was going to be a long drawn out scenario. The solution......Keep what we are doing in Iraq, the right people are in charge in Iraq, Afghan and Pakistan. If you want out and don't believe the fight against terror or whatever desires death against American citizens is wrong, fine. Please find a candidate or politician that supports your opinions. If we would all get behind the President and military we would have a fighting chance. If you are against Bush or Obama or Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush or Clinton, then please say your piece and realize this is one of the biggest obstacles this country has faced. Not Revolutionary War, Civil War, WWII but it is in the top 5 or 6. If you can't recognize that, then you really need to provide an answer other than just complaining and bitching. I have never heard a different solution or alternative to what the government of the USA did in 2002....... I would like to hear different alternatives to what happened in 2002 or a solution to end the conflict now........
DAM, I am fired up, I know about a dozen people personally and another 30-40 people that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan and you know what, they would do what they did again and again.....INNOCENT AMERICAN CITIZENS died and were attacked. Please don't tell me this was about oil, that is political speak, President Bush could give a rats *** about Exxon, Shell, BP or any other major oil company. Those companies actually took money away from his family and the oil investments that they have or had in West Texas.
Let's face it... whatever label we put on it is only for all of us that are not fighting it. Obama might have wanted to change the label so as to appeal to "his" constituency just as W might have wanted to use "War on Terror" to try to appeal more to "his" constituency (and I don't mean this as any kind of insult to either one). The fact that remains is that the people fighting the "war" for us - the soldiers - don't really give a **** what it's called. They just know that they are fighting the ******** that are in their cross-hairs. You can call it a "war on terror", a "war on the evildoers", a "mild disagreement with those that intend to do us harm" or whatever macho or sissy label you choose to put on it. But in the end, whatever labels we put on it will not increase or decrease the focus that our military men and women have on the fight.
There is no time for this Administration to pursue a "War on Terror." They are far too busy pursuing a "War on Americans."
