Forget "GWOT" -- It's Now CAEWWTDUH -- or "Duh!" for Short
Some mid-level civil servant in the Office of Management and Budget must be getting a lot of flack. To recap, according to OMB director Peter Orszag, a bureaucrat in his agency communicated to the Pentagon that the administration wanted to scrap the term Global War on Terror (GWOT) and replace it with the term Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
The only problem is, the administration had no such plans. Or so they say. But the memo went out anyhow, and now it seems to be causing, if not confusion, then at least minor head aches for government spokesmen and other officials.
At yesterday's Pentagon news briefing, a reporter asked Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell about this very issue:
Q (Off mike) -- e-mail sent, from the Obama administration to Pentagon officials, about using the phrase the global war on terror, to using overseas contingency operations....
MR. MORRELL: I've never received such a directive. I think the White House and OMB for that matter have been very clear about this as well, that they have never issued such a directive. I think they've explained that perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little overexuberant and done so. But I can just tell you, I'm the one who speaks publicly about these matters. And I have never been told which words to use or not to use. So I don't think there's anything to the story....Q What's your preferred nomenclature?
MR. MORRELL: I don't really have one....
Q (Off mike) -- GWOT, global war on terror, lumps together an entire -- you know, the entire Muslim faith and an entire region. Do you see that as a concern?
MR. MORRELL: Well, I don't think there's anything in that term that identifies any particular faith or ethnicity. I mean, there are terrorists of all faiths, of all colors, of all races and ethnicities. And so perhaps a better -- another way to refer to it would be, you know, a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm.
Emphasis mine. So the new term is "Campaign Against Extremists Who Wish To Do Us Harm. CAEWWTDUH. That's not quite as economical as GWOT, or OCO, but it's better than George Bush did when he tried to rename his war on terror on the fly.
Full exchange after the jump.
Q (Off mike) -- e-mail sent, from the Obama administration to Pentagon officials, about using the phrase the global war on terror, to using overseas contingency operations --
MR. MORRELL: I'm sorry. Say it one more time.
Q (Off mike) -- e-mail sent, from Obama administration to Pentagon --
MR. MORRELL: (Off mike) -- global war on terror directive that was or wasn't a directive.
Q Yes.
MR. MORRELL: I've never received such a directive. I think the White House and OMB for that matter have been very clear about this as well, that they have never issued such a directive.
I think they've explained that perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little overexuberant and done so. But I can just tell you, I'm the one who speaks publicly about these matters. And I have never been told which words to use or not to use. So I don't think there's anything to the story.
Q You still use the phrase.
MR. MORRELL: I think I have used it. I think I have. I don't avoid it. I don't seek it out. If it's appropriate, I'll use it. I could be wrong, but I think the president has used it. But, so I don't -- I was surprised to see that story, as well, because I know of no directive prohibiting the use of that term.
Q What's your preferred nomenclature?
MR. MORRELL: I don't really have one. I mean, I don't think a whole lot about it. I think that we are involved in global operations to protect the homeland and the American people. And a large part of that is going after terrorists, seeking them out, wherever they are, wherever they're plotting, wherever they are training to launch attacks against us.
So --
Q (Off mike) -- GWOT, global war on terror, lumps together an entire -- you know, the entire Muslim faith and an entire region.
Do you see that as a concern?
MR. MORRELL: Well, I don't think there's anything in that term that identifies any particular faith or ethnicity. I mean, there are terrorists of all faiths, of all colors, of all races and ethnicities. And so perhaps a better -- another way to refer to it would be, you know, a campaign against extremists who wish to do us harm.
I mean, there's a variety of ways to describe this. But I don't -- the point is, there has been no mandate from anybody as to how we should talk about this.
Q How do you feel about overseas contingency --
MR. MORRELL: I think that is -- that is -- the new way of referring to war spending is that overseas contingency -- it's still new to me, so let me get it right -- overseas contingency operations budget.
So.
Q So more of a budgetary term, would you say, than a kind of broader term of the administration to describe the military campaigns and --
MR. MORRELL: No, this is a budget term. I mean, this is -- this replaces supplementals. But it's not just a -- this is not a matter of semantics. There is a difference here. And the difference here is that the overseas contingency operations budget will be sent to the Hill with the DOD base budget and considered with it so that the Congress will be able to assess it together and make determinations together with the base budget. So I think there is -- even though it is above and beyond the base, it is coupled with the base, it's part of the president's budget, it goes up there packaged together and they will consider them together.
















this is pretty stupid. the press is not concerned about policies or practices, but rather what we call it...which is, probably the LEAST relevant thing of all...
seriously, can someone tell me why what we call it is important? I mean, we could call it "steve" and it wouldn't really impact the policies or effectiveness of the operations...
so ridiculous...
March 26, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed. I can't figure out why some people are so obsessed with this story.
March 26, 2009 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because they are immature and dumb. (Jake Tapper).
March 31, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I proposed the acronym WOMBAT a few months ago, for "War on Muharib, Brave against Terror". If you take a look at my explanation in detail I think you'll agree that there's something to my proposal worth considering!
March 26, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, no, no, I've got the best one: Foreign Actions Regarding Terrorists, or F.A.R.T. for short.
Check and mate.
March 26, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL
ok, that's good...even i can remember that.
March 26, 2009 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perfect! Then we can say that we will "FART in your general direction!" And "your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries! You and your silly jihadi kiniggits!"
And if they insist on threatening us again, we shall merely taunt them a second time.
Game over ;)
Only problem, it seems so very.... well... French. The Republicans will never go for it. We'll never get 60 votes, particularly if Bayh and Shaheen wave their "moderate" Dem dicks (figurative, of course, in the case of Shaheen).
Oh well....
March 27, 2009 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally I think "does it really need a brand name?" is the best response to "what's your preferred nomenclature for the War On Terror?" possible. Kudos to Mr. Morrell.
March 26, 2009 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
DIRNABN?
I kinda like it.
The "branding" thing is indeed silly ... the press's obsession with it, and the failure of the Obama admin to just come out and say STFU, it doesn't matter what we call it, it matters what we're doing.
I do like quite a bit of what Morrell had to say, despite his stumbling, though... particularly
Refreshing. And true. And ignored by our press, not to mention the previous Administration.
March 27, 2009 3:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is an idiotic post, and shows that the press just misses the point:
The concept was flawed, not the name. They haven't changed the name, they've stopped using the concept.
Get it? Stop fixating on the name. Ideas matter.
March 31, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
OH, I see you were linking to Jake Tapper. That explains the juvenile inanity of the post.
March 31, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink