Keeping the blogosphere posted on the goings on of the world of submarines since late 2004... and mocking and belittling general foolishness wherever it may be found. Idaho's first and foremost submarine blog. (If you don't like something on this blog, please E-mail me; don't call me at home.)

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

A War By Any Other Name...

A while back, I made fun of former SecDef Rumsfeld for his attempt to change the name of the Global War on Terror to something more fuzzy-sounding. Now the Democratic leadership of the HASC is apparently trying to put the term down the memory hole:
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.”...
...“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.”
People who try to sugar-coat the fact that we are at war with people who want to kill all of us are only doing a disservice to their followers. Dems can say that the war's over at some point, but it only takes one side to continue a war.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

attn: BubbleHead

i concur that one should be as accurate as possible when using language/words

so, i was kinda puzzled by your following comment: "People who try to sugar-coat the fact that we are at war with people who want to kill all of us are only doing a disservice to their followers"

i understand that Al-Queda(sp) wants "to kill all of us" and thus we need to be at war with them

but, i don't understand your underlying linkage to Iraq.

since March 2003 we have been "at war" in Iraq but i don't recall any tangible evidence that they (the Iraqis) want"to kill all of us"

have is misunderstood you or is there any evidence to support your claim?

~ the Ddouble Sstandard

4/04/2007 4:35 PM

Blogger Kevin said...

"The long war" actually came out of CENTCOM/Abazaid.

We made fun of it when I was at NAVCENT but we couldn't come up with anything better....

4/19/2007 10:14 AM


Post a Comment

<< Home