The Nondescript Something We May or May Not be Doing Involving People That We Misunderstand Initiative

“Better to illuminate than merely to shine, to deliver to others contemplated truths than merely to contemplate.” – St. Thomas Aquinas

Home » Politics, President Obama, Terrorism

The Nondescript Something We May or May Not be Doing Involving People That We Misunderstand Initiative

26 March 2009 15 Comments

butcher

BY: NCViking

Good bye Global War on Terror, Hello nondescript overseas contingency operations, current operations, operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, today’s joint fight, irregular warfare, etc. Apparently calling the GWOT what it is does not suit the new politically correct agenda of the White House. All Bush/Cheney Evil Empire acronyms must be scrubbed so European fuddy-duddies will like us, and people who support the likes of Mahmoud Imagonnajihad will stop burning our leaders in effigy and sentencing bloggers to death. Yikes!

From UPI:

WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) — A tiff is surfacing between the Pentagon and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget over whether excising phrases such “global war on terror” was ordered.

In a memo distributed to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s Office of Security Review said “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terror’. Please use ‘overseas contingency operation,’” The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) reported Wednesday. The memo said the directive came from the OMB, the executive branch agency that reviews public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.

OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer says there was no directive.

“There was no memo, no guidance,” Baer said Tuesday. “This is the opinion of a career civil servant.”

Either the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing or somebody is full of it. Either way, give me a break. Here is how Michelle puts it. Check out if you can see anything super cool in her statement …

Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the Obama administration’s vehement denial that it is backing away from the phrase “Global War on Terror.” The phrase has long been a source of debate and rancor – not just on the left, but also on our side because it omits the important, specific context of global jihad and dhimmitude that we are supposed to be combatting.

Still, “Global War on Terror” is far superior to what the Obama White House has concocted. Despite the denials, military officials have gotten their instructions. A military source forwarded me an internal e-mail trail that illuminates the whitewashing. So long, “Global War on Terror.” Hello, [blank]. See the email here.

Did you notice the super cool thing? She used the term ‘Illuninates’ … must be a fan of our blog. Or should I say our …

‘Nondescript computer authoring and publishing vehicle used to reflect the opinions of a select few that may or may not coincide with the views of every member of it’s intended audience Initiative’. Phew!

Mon Deu!

UPDATE

Generate your own Obama euphemism with The Obama-Matic^TM.

Last 5 posts by NCViking

Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010

15 Comments »

Mike said:

This post is ‘muddled.’ What is it’s purpose? What is it trying to convey?

The picture, plus the context, suggests that GWOT is the right if not righteousness name to justify the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse still, it seems to suggest that any name change away from GWOT is practically tantamount to turning away from the goals of these wars.

If so, then this post got it wrong. The geopolitical consequences of retaining the name War on Terror are huge. I am surprised that you would even find this an issue to post about.

- The most significant development in the region would be the fall of Pakistan: it would produce an extremist regime aligned with AQ with nukes.

- The US has been neglecting this problem and has allowed Afghanistan to fall back into the hands of the Taliban again. Afghanistan provides significant revenues and sanctuary to Taliban forces.

- Under Obama, the change in course is to stabilize Afghanistan, and to provide a base for operations to save and stabilize Pakistan. The US is now, finally, focused more on fighting the Taliban and AQ than ever before under Bush.

- The US is making no friends with the GWOT. That label only plays well with the home audience (who heard it and marginally voted Bush back in).

- Outside of the US, GWOT is heard as GWOI (Global War on Islam).

- Overseas Contingency Operation is neutral and allows the US to go anywhere at any time and for any reason, like to prop up Pakistan, not specifically tied to or justified by the terrorism.

I find many conservative commentators skew the facts. They are populists who do America a disservice. The more individual Americans find their facts twisted and skewed, the more they will continue to reject their arguments and ideals. Conservative talk radio numbers are down. (http://www.amconmag.com/article/2009/feb/23/00006/)

For example, this post quotes Michelle Malkin as saying that the “Washington Post reported on the Obama administration’s vehement denial that it is backing away from the phrase Global War on Terror.”

The Washington Post article never uses the term vehement. The entire Michelle Malkin post is therefore a sham. This blog’s posting just perpetuates the sham.

It’s about personal responsibility. Either it’s the truth you are speaking of, or it isn’t.

# 27 March 2009 at 6:03 am

NCViking (author) said:

Are you arguing that the administration’s denial was not ‘vehement’ (made with conviction), but instead casual? Michelle using the term vehement to describe the denial (which happened [true]) is irrelevant to the merit of a writers opinion. Subjective dismissal, yet again is an ineffective argument tactic. Also, the picture in the post is of angry Muslims in Europe protesting with a blood thirsty, terror message. The main picture used (on the home page) is of a terrorist affiliated with Hamas (I believe). How do these pictures reflect Iraq and Afghanistan? You are adding quite a bit of context to my post that isn’t there in order to make your point.

There is nothing wrong with the phrase Global War on Terror. Overseas Contingency Operation means absolutely nothing. The war in Iraq is called ‘The War in Iraq’ and/or ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom’. The same can be said of Afghanistan (Operation Enduring Freedom). The Global War on Terror is just that – a war on terrorists at home and around the globe. More specifically, violent Islamic extremists who use terror tactics, like bombing trains, subways, discos, markets, embassies, buildings and other horrible things anywhere in the world to promote their agenda and they in some instances overlap the wars. Just eliminating Al Qaeda in Pakistan/Afghanistan or Iraq for that matter, though just, will not stop cells around the world from killing. Neither will coming up with a new goofy, politically-correct nondescript name to please others. Hence, the context of the post.

# 27 March 2009 at 7:08 am

Mike said:

I am saying Michelle’s quote of the Washington Post is incorrect and therefore by definition is misleading.

My context is to provide background to why there is a shift, and why the shift is vital.

GWOT means a great deal, but it only means what you think it means to you, or generally to some Americans. It means something completely different to other parts of the world.

If GWOT is all it takes, and the world has to accept it, then by all means call it GWOT. If it is hurting American interests, then what is the point of using it?

We’ll make it simple: if the term GWOT is hurting American interests, do you insist we should keep it?

# 27 March 2009 at 7:35 am

NCViking (author) said:

She is not quoting the Washington Post, she is summarizing the article.

Your context is perfectly fine, mischaracterizing the context of my post for the sake of your argument is not.

Is using the term GWOT hurting American interests? Some may say yes because it hurts the feelings of Europeans and some Muslims. I and some others think not since we are calling a spade a spade in this battle. Diluting the description to something that is ‘nondescript’ diminishes the seriousness of the threat, which in turn could consequentially hurt American interests.

# 27 March 2009 at 7:52 am

Mike said:

All of these are semantic arguments. This post, and Michelle’s, are all about the name on the door. My quibble is not the name.

My quibble is that arguing over the semantics is biting at the heels of Obama when he is refocusing US interests on the real issues – Pakistan and Afghanistan.

No one cares what it’s called. Not Europeans, not the ones I speak with. The entire world knows that the threat of AQ was demonstrated by the 9/11 attacks, as well as the attacks in London and Madrid.

GWOT is synonymous with Abu Gharib and all of the other images around detention. Middle East countries have had a difficult time aligning around GWOT for the last 6 years. Calling it a spade doesn’t improve matters one iota.

Let’s get real here: Obama needs to refocus on the (very serious thread) of Pakistan near the brink. You can bite the ankles, but it won’t be a big help to saving Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I think you understand the threat, I just surprised you wanted to ankle bite on this one.

# 27 March 2009 at 8:25 am

NCViking (author) said:

Semantics or indicative of a whitewashing trend, as Michelle describes it, which is ridiculous. I sometimes like to post on things I find ridiculous, though you may call it ankle biting.

# 27 March 2009 at 8:49 am

The Windy City Windbag said:

Ankle biting the term I use on this site and the one that I used in a previous post, so I expect royalties on this one.

# 27 March 2009 at 10:46 am

Christine said:

“butcher those who insult Islam” “Slay those who insult Islam”. Time for us to make up signs that say “Butcher those who practice Islam” and “Slay those who practice Islam” before they slay us. What a bunch of barbaric neanderthals. This religion is demonic and will NEVER coexist peacefully with the rest of the world.

# 5 April 2009 at 6:28 am