New Name for the War on Terror

[michaeledward]

From the New York Times...

U.S. Officials Retool Slogan for Terror War


By ERIC SCHMITT and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, July 25 - The Bush administration is retooling its slogan for the fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, pushing the idea that the long-term struggle is as much an ideological battle as a military mission, senior administration and military officials said Monday.

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.


​

Several thoughts come to mind.

• If it is no longer a war, are soldiers no longer dying for it?
• I thought this administration told us they never launch a marketing campaign in the summer.
• Don't blame me, I'm from New Hampshire.
• The Bush Adminstration has finally got around to understanding there is a diplomatic element to September 11.
• So much for finding Osama bin Laden "Dead or Alive"

This article makes me very sad.

 

[still learning]

Hello, " Violent Extremism" name change is OK, but we are still forcus on the words " War on terrorist" and it doesn't mean US armys to fight them!

Only in America we get caught up with words...........Aloha

 

[Makalakumu]

The war on terror implies a target...terrorists. A "global struggle against violent extremism" is a far broader definition. For the Bush Administration, whose policy is to "reform" Islam by force and reshape the middle east, this change is absolutely neccessary. There are alot of people who practice radical forms of Isalm and most of them are not terrorists.

 

[sgtmac_46]

The war on terror implies a target...terrorists. A "global struggle against violent extremism" is a far broader definition. For the Bush Administration, whose policy is to "reform" Islam by force and reshape the middle east, this change is absolutely neccessary. There are alot of people who practice radical forms of Isalm and most of them are not terrorists.

What it means is that at least a couple western leaders have developed the moral courage to call this what it is...a war against violent islamic extremism. It isn't Osama Bin Laden building these terrorists, he and Al-qaeda (and Hamas, and Hezbollah, etc, etc) just gave them name. It's violent sects of Wahhabist and Shiite Islam that is cranking out these terrorists. It is the clerics and immams. It is the madrasas' that are indoctrinating these folks. These may be the foot soldiers, but those "people who practice radical forms of Islam 'and most of them are not terrorists'" that are producing these individuals. They are teaching their sons (and even their daughters) that they should sacrifice themselves to this struggle, while in the mean time feigning innocence by denying that they are supporting these acts with their money and their teachings. This is a war against the violent sects of Wahhabism and Shiite Islam, and without winning that, we will be fighting this for decades more.

 

[modarnis]

The war on terror implies a target...terrorists. A "global struggle against violent extremism" is a far broader definition. For the Bush Administration, whose policy is to "reform" Islam by force and reshape the middle east, this change is absolutely neccessary. There are alot of people who practice radical forms of Isalm and most of them are not terrorists.

Can you direct me to a legitimate primary source of information that provides evidence that most people who practice radical forms of islam are not terrorists?

 

[FearlessFreep]

For what it's worth, in case any one thinks this is descriminatory, the US government seems willing to engage against extremist forms of Christianity as well. I'm thinking particularly about the Branch Davidians.

 

[Makalakumu]

Can you direct me to a legitimate primary source of information that provides evidence that most people who practice radical forms of islam are not terrorists?

This is just common sense. Check the populations of the countries where forms or radical islam is widely practiced. Next imagine if 50% were terrorists? 25%? How about 1%? Even at 1% we are still in the multi-million range. If this were true, we would be seeing terrorism throughout the world on an absolutely nightmarish scale.

 

[FearlessFreep]

Define "radical islam"

There are forms of Christianity that would seem 'radical' by most that view the US government as evil and don't want to have anything to do with it. Then there are *really* radical Christians who would advocate, and engage in, armed, violent resitstance against or action against the US government. There are not many in the US in that last group because the US government works fairly actively to stop them. All the US is doing now is taking that abroad. "Radical Islam" is not a problem until it gets violent. Of all those who practice something one would call 'radical islam', very few get violent

 

[Makalakumu]

What it means is that at least a couple western leaders have developed the moral courage to call this what it is...a war against violent islamic extremism.

That is a peice of the puzzle, but not the only peice and not even the largest peice...

This is taken from...

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

<B>[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]June 3, 1997[/font]
​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles. [/font]

​

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next. [/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Elliott Abrams[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]Gary Bauer [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]William J. Bennett [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]Eliot A. Cohen [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]Midge Decter [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]Paula Dobriansky [font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font]Steve Forbes

[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Aaron Friedberg[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Francis Fukuyama[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Frank Gaffney[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Zalmay Khalilzad[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I. Lewis Libby [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Peter W. Rodman [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Stephen P. Rosen [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Vin Weber[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]George Weigel[/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [/font][font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Paul Wolfowitz[/font]http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm​

​

​

This "new" war will put the US's hand in the bag of Middle Eastern oil above all others. It satisfies US "interests" to do so at this time. And, in fact, we really have no other alternative if we want to maintain our current standard for the American Way.​

​

[/font]</B>​

 

[sgtmac_46]

This is just common sense. Check the populations of the countries where forms or radical islam is widely practiced. Next imagine if 50% were terrorists? 25%? How about 1%? Even at 1% we are still in the multi-million range. If this were true, we would be seeing terrorism throughout the world on an absolutely nightmarish scale.

Terrorists are mere foot soldiers of their ideology. They require the support, teachings and financing of a far larger group of believes in order to wage the violent jihad. Without the madrasas to crank out new jihadist and a large number of true believers to provide financial support and a new generation of foot soldiers, along with aid, comfort and intelligence information, they could not operate.

 

[modarnis]

This is just common sense. Check the populations of the countries where forms or radical islam is widely practiced. Next imagine if 50% were terrorists? 25%? How about 1%? Even at 1% we are still in the multi-million range. If this were true, we would be seeing terrorism throughout the world on an absolutely nightmarish scale.

You seem to have avoided the question. When those of us who are right of center post an opinion that relies on common sense, many on this board look for validation from sources. To properly make your argument, you need to:
1. Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam
2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical Islam
3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

Without the data, its just conjecture

 

[michaeledward]

Apparently, the senior advisors were not communicating well with the 'Senior' advisor. Either that, or the polls that the President doesn't listen to, were saying a faux pas has been made.

President Makes It Clear: Phrase Is 'War on Terror'

By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
Published: August 4, 2005
GRAPEVINE, Tex., Aug. 3 - President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the "global struggle against violent extremism," the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.

In recent public appearances, Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers have avoided formulations using the word "war," and some of Mr. Bush's top advisers have suggested that the administration wanted to jettison what had been its semiofficial wording of choice, "the global war on terror."

In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, said that the conflict was "more than just a military war on terror" and that the United States needed to counter "the gloomy vision" of the extremists and "offer a positive alternative."

But administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy. At the same time, Mr. Bush, by some accounts, told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy.

"We're at war with an enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001," Mr. Bush said in his address here, to the American Legislative Exchange Council, a group of state legislators. "We're at war against an enemy that, since that day, has continued to kill."

Mr. Bush made a nod to the criticism that "war on terror" was a misleading phrase in the sense that the enemy is not terrorism, but those who used it to achieve their goals. In doing so, he used the word "war," as he did at least 13 other times in his 47-minute speech, most of which was about domestic policy.

"Make no mistake about it, this is a war against people who profess an ideology, and they use terror as a means to achieve their objectives," he said.

Gen. Richard B. Myers of the Air Force, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on July 18 in an address to the National Press Club that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

General Myers said then that the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

On Wednesday, in its efforts to hammer home the point that the "war" phraseology was still administration policy, the White House sent e-mail messages to reporters after Mr. Bush's speech with some excerpts of an address delivered Tuesday by Mr. Rumsfeld. In that speech, Mr. Rumsfeld backed away from the new language he had been employing in recent weeks.

"Some ask, are we still engaged in a war on terror?" Mr. Rumsfeld said. "Let there be no mistake about it. It's a war. The president properly termed it that after Sept. 11. The only way to defend against terrorism is to go on the attack."

In a telephone interview on Wednesday evening, a spokesman for the Pentagon, Lawrence Di Rita, sought to play down any disagreement between Mr. Rumsfeld and the president, citing the secretary's speech on Tuesday, in Dallas.

"The secretary doesn't feel this is push back," Mr. Di Rita said. "He feels it's an important clarification."

In introducing the new language, administration officials had suggested that the change reflected an evolution in the president's thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks and had been adopted after discussions among Mr. Bush's senior advisers that began in January.

The new slogan quickly become grist for late-night comics and drew news coverage that linked it with the emergence of a broad new approach to defining and attacking the problem of Islamic extremism through diplomacy and efforts to build closer ties to moderate Muslims, as well as through military action.

Mr. Bush arrived in Texas on Tuesday, and is spending the rest of the month at his vacation home in Crawford. After winning a string of legislative victories before Congress recessed for the summer, Mr. Bush also used his appearance here to try to build support for the issues that will be at the top of his agenda when he returns to Washington.

He said that he would continue to push to overhaul Social Security and that he would press ahead with his call for a new approach to immigration despite the deep divisions it has exposed in his party.


​

 

[Marginal]

You seem to have avoided the question. When those of us who are right of center post an opinion that relies on common sense, many on this board look for validation from sources. To properly make your argument, you need to:
1. Define Radical Islam vis a vis regular Islam
2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical Islam
3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

Without the data, its just conjecture

Ah. So until you provide proof that right wing christians aren't all violent terrorist abortion clinic bombers, then I'm perfectly safe in making such an absurd claim, and I'm also free to treat it as a valid point?

 

[Andrew Green]

Wording is always important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

And I can't help but think that this new phrase is just to make it a little more vague. "No, they weren't terrorists, they haven't commited acts of terrorism. But they are still violent extremists in there beliefs..."

I also wonder what this looks like from the other side, especially with this new wording. Could the west not be seen as violent extremists by the middle east? We are bombing them, occupying areas, forcing our beliefs and government structures on them by force.

As extreme as we see there views, isn't it likely they see ours as just as extreme?

Terrorism can be defined fairly well, a act of terrorism can be identified. But "extremism" is not see easy, because what counts as extreme depends on where you look at it from.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Ah. So until you provide proof that right wing christians aren't all violent terrorist abortion clinic bombers, then I'm perfectly safe in making such an absurd claim, and I'm also free to treat it as a valid point?

That's an easy one. Lets figure out the number of abortion clinic bombings, and subtract them from the total number of christians.

Wording is always important http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak

And I can't help but think that this new phrase is just to make it a little more vague. "No, they weren't terrorists, they haven't commited acts of terrorism. But they are still violent extremists in there beliefs..."

I also wonder what this looks like from the other side, especially with this new wording. Could the west not be seen as violent extremists by the middle east? We are bombing them, occupying areas, forcing our beliefs and government structures on them by force.

As extreme as we see there views, isn't it likely they see ours as just as extreme?

Terrorism can be defined fairly well, a act of terrorism can be identified. But "extremism" is not see easy, because what counts as extreme depends on where you look at it from.

I think we can safely call anyone who specifically targets innocent people for political or religious purposes a terrorist.

 

[Marginal]

S, first you'd have to:

1. Define Radical Right Christianity vis a vis regular Right Christianity
2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical radical Right Christianity
3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

Otherwise I get to make up whatever the heck I want to say about right wing Christians.

 

[sgtmac_46]

S, first you'd have to:

1. Define Radical Right Christianity vis a vis regular Right Christianity
2. Provide a legitimate primary source for a study quantifying practioners of radical radical Right Christianity
3. Then provide some evidence that of that finite population, most are not terrorists

Otherwise I get to make up whatever the heck I want to say about right wing Christians.

Go for it, if it makes you feel better. Who really cares.

 

[Cryozombie]

Marginal,

I believe the point Modarnis was making is that certain members of this board insist on that type of information anytime someone presents a viewpoint opposite of theirs...

And he's now trying to use the same tactic to see if they will play the game by their own rules.

 

[Marginal]

I understand the intent.

The alternative is straight out retarded however. Just say whatever you want with no need to validate it, or support the opinion?

Works for some members (well, not really, but they engage in that superficial discourse,) generating locked threads by the boatfull in their wake. Can't see how that's condusive to discussion, friendly or otherwise.

 

[michaeledward]

Speaking of new names ... or not so new names ... it seems the President can't keep it all straight in his head.

NY Times falsely reported Bush had "consistently used" term "war on terror" since 9-11

In an August 4 article by reporter Richard W. Stevenson, The New York Times falsely reported that President Bush has "consistently used" the phrase "war on terror" since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In fact, Bush twice said in 2004 that the administration "misnamed" the war on terror and suggested alternative terms for the effort.

According to the Times, after top administration officials, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and national security adviser Stephen Hadley, adopted the new term "global struggle against violent extremism," Bush reportedly "told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" [emphasis added].

But, as The New York Sun documented on August 1, Bush himself "expressed skepticism about the 'war on terror' formulation" during an August 2004 campaign speech, when he said that "it ought to be [called] the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world."

From Bush's August 6, 2004, remarks to the UNITY: Journalists of Color convention in Washington:

We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. [laughter]

No, that's what they do. They use terror to -- and they use it effectively, because we've got good hearts. We're people of conscience, they aren't. They will cut off a person's head like that, and not even care about it. That's why I tell you, you can't talk sense to them.

​

The Sun reported that the audience laughed at Bush's remark but that "the president made it clear he was not joking." In a September 6, 2004, column, United Press International homeland and national security editor Shaun Waterman wrote that "Bush seems to have intended the remark as a joke"; but Waterman also noted that, in a September interview with Time magazine, Bush "repeated it, stripped of hyperbole, in all seriousness."

From the September 6 edition of Time:

TIME: Is the war on terrorism something our generation and the next generation are just going to have to get used to?

BUSH: Yes, I think it is a long-lasting ideological struggle. Frankly, the war on terror is somewhat misnamed, though. It ought to be called the struggle of a totalitarian point of view that uses terror as a tool to intimidate the free.

​

During the 2004 presidential campaign, both Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney attacked Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) for his purported reluctance to use the term "war" to describe the struggle against terror.

​