GWOT Retired, Long National Nightmare Over
Our long national nightmare is finally over (probably), and we may have an anonymous bureaucrat in the Office of Management and Budget to thank for it. Last week, it was reported that he (or she) sent a memo to the Pentagon suggesting that the White House had had enough with the term Global War on Terror (GWOT) and would henceforth prefer the term Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
Soon enough, though, reporters got wind of it and administration officials--OMB chief Peter Orszag and Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell--began walking the claim back.
But today, none other than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms it: Whether a directive's been issued or not, the administration has dropped GWOT from its lexicon.
"I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it.... The administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself," said Clinton while en route to the Hague.
Now, this doesn't mean the White House isn't having a hard time quitting their old friend GWOT. Just last week, when it rolled out its new Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy, officials released a summary memo announcing that their involvement in Pakistan would be linked to that country's "performance against terror".
But breaking up has always been hard to do. No word yet on what, if anything will replace GWOT. So far the only named alternatives are the aforementioned, but boring, OCO and the extremely cumbersome Campaign Against Extremists Who Wish To Do Us Harm. Or CAEWWTDUH. Perhaps TPM readers should weigh in--surely y'all can come up with something better.
Josh
Matt
Eric
So you're of the opinion that using the term "Global War on Terror" is our "long national nightmare" not combating terrorism around the globe?
March 31, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. The stupid bumper sticker slogan was propoganda fodder for the terrorists and nothing more. They aren't warriors, they are criminals. Don't play into their game by making it sound like a stupid war.
March 31, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
So now that we refer to this as "Overseas Contingency Operations" everything is better, Russians now have nothing to fear from Chechen rebels, fighting has ceased in Iraq and Afghanistan and the people of Darfur are no longer hungry and oppressed. I bet Palestinians are dancing with Isrealis in Gaza as we speak. Thank God (sorry, god) for the wisdom and insight of TheOne!
March 31, 2009 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, if I understand correctly, that's a budget term, meant to replace the use of supplemental budgets, not the phrase "war on terror."
March 31, 2009 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
And what's your point? Obviously all those areas have major problems regarding terrorism and the causes of the terrorism and the responses to the terrorism in each of those areas is completely different. That's the problem with this global war on terrorism bullsh*t. It was trying to fit criminal activity caused by a variety of different reasons into some kind of bullsh*t "war."
Why make them warriors? They are criminals. By the way, if its a bs war, why didn't we abide by the geneva conentions and declare them prisoners of war? Oh, that right, it's a "war" for a bumper sticker, but it's not a "war" when it comes to thngs like the geneva conentions. Pathetic and criminal on the part of the king's administration.
March 31, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
"By the way, if its a bs war, why didn't we abide by the geneva conentions and declare them prisoners of war?"
Because they didn't meet the definition of POW's as outlined in the Geneva Conentions. As a matter of fact, the Geneva Conentions allows for the death penalty for "unlawful combatants" and they recieved more rights and better treatment than required by the Geneva Conentions.
March 31, 2009 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, they did if it was a "war." In fact alot of the prisoners at gitmo were and are taliban. I believe the taliban was running afghanistan before we invaded, weren't they? Also, there are provisions in the geneva conventions for detaining civilians, which we ignored as well.
Thank God we have adults running the administration now, as opposed to teenagers that believe 24 is reality. The last 8 years of our history will be the darkest and biggest stain on america and its values. How sad and pathetic.
March 31, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, you are just wrong. Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions outlines the requirements for POW status. You must meet the following:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
If they don't meet all 4 they aren't entitled to POW status and the protections that go with it.
March 31, 2009 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Wasn't the taliban an organized military force? Or, am I missing something. I thought they were running the show. I actually think that they even had an airforce.
March 31, 2009 10:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's 1 of the 4 requirements...you need to meet the other 3 as well.
March 31, 2009 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh please.
1. They carried arms openly, obviously.
2. They were acting under commanders.
3. The all wore the same get up.
4. They were in a war and as far as we all know acted in accordance with the customs and "laws" of war. We didn't by the way by failing to abide by the geneva conventions, but let's ignore that little factoid.
Give me a break.
March 31, 2009 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
3. The all wore the same get up.
as the civillian population...ie no uniforms = unlawful combatant (just 1 example).
March 31, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
No they didn't. The taliban had some type of wacky colored robes and had turbans. The entire civilian population didn't dress the same way as the taliban did and they were organized in formations. Come on, that's lame.
March 31, 2009 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, I will never understand why you guys try so hard to bend the facts to support terrorist and criminals...amazing.
March 31, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, why do you say that I am supporting terrorists and criminals. I have advocated no such support. That is outrageous. I am merely advocating following the law. We are a nation of laws now. We lost that for the last 8 years, but we found the damn constitution and US Code that was missing. The law is the law and should be abided by no matter how offensive the violator of the law is. Throw the book at them and lock them up for criminal activity and even war crimes. But to just ignore US and international law makes us as bad as the "terrorists."
March 31, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
No...you want to "bend" the law to give "special" treatment to unlawful combatants, you want criminals treated as POW's you want to grant Constitutional rights to those who don't warrant them,...that is "supporting" them...sorry. It is.
March 31, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want to give them constitutional rights or bend the law in their favor. I don't want them mirandized. I want the us to follow international law in dealing with the criminals and follow the geneva conventions as well and the other treaty obligations of the us, including the international ban on torture. How is that giving them special treatment or support? You really have to stop listening to lush.
March 31, 2009 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
...your right...only the enlightened left is capable of independent thought. All opposition statements are prepared by Rush Limbaugh daily and desiminated by his minions in accordance with his directions. I will be back when I recieve further orders...
March 31, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look forward to it. Dust off the geneva conventions, international ban on torture, international law, nurenberg trials, the constitution, etc., etc.
March 31, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
...capturing journalists and making videos cutting off their heads would be another example...
March 31, 2009 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"...as far as we all know acted in accordance with the customs and "laws" of war."
You are in denial or have no concept of "the customs and laws of war."
March 31, 2009 11:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I do have an idea of the laws and customs of war. You are trying to manipulate the facts. We invaded their country that they were running. I'm not against the invasion or taking them out by the way. But to claim that the geneva conventions don't apply is really pathetic. We as a nation are better than that.
March 31, 2009 11:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a chance to prove me wrong...do an image search on Google for Taliban and find the "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"...
p.s. A turban doesn't count...
March 31, 2009 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tell you what, you do the same for me for a US soldier.
"fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"...
I actually thought our troops wore camoflauge to be concealed, especially from a distance, but I could be wrong. Don't tell me our troops wouldn't fall in your definition for application of the geneva conventions. That wouldn't be a good thing.
March 31, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
A US soldier has a recognizable uniform...that's the point.
March 31, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, but I thought it was a "fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"... Now we are talking about the whole uniform? Well, how is that different from what the taliban were wearing in formations at the time of the invasion? I don't see a distinction.
March 31, 2009 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's your problem...you don't see a distinction between our soldiers and the guys making films cutting off the heads of journalists and contractors...that's been y'alls problem all along.
March 31, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope. I never said that either and would never say that. The problem with you guys is that you extrapolate to simplistic ridiculous conclusions not based on facts.
March 31, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did
you
notice
how
skinny
the
posts
get ?
Starting
to
look
like
an
e.e.
cummings
poem
March 31, 2009 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
L
O
L
!
March 31, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.daylife.com/photo/03vY63LgIv9dH
Notice the distinct uniform of the Pakistani Army vs the Taliban militants...not that you actually care about the truth...
March 31, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now you are moving the goal posts again. I was talking about at the time of the invasion, not about the current insurgency. That's apples and oranges. Maybe if we handled the original invasion properly, with enough troops and in accord with the geneva conventions concerning captured taliban, we wouldn't be fighting an insurgency and still be there. Just a thought.
March 31, 2009 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I was talking about at the time of the invasion, not about the current insurgency..."
News Flash...it's the same guys, dressed the same...that's the whole point.
March 31, 2009 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
News flash, no it's not the same issue. We were talking about the taliban incarcerated at gitmo from at the time of the invasion originally. If you are referring to the taliban insurgency now, then you are referring to the provisions of the geneva conventions concerning incarceration associated with an insurgency, not pow's, obviously. Jeez, sometimes you guys are so dense.
March 31, 2009 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Maybe if we handled the original invasion properly, with enough troops and in accord with the geneva conventions concerning captured taliban, we wouldn't be fighting an insurgency and still be there. Just a thought."
They're just misunderstood...we "oppress" them...they wouldn't fight if we were just "nicer"...
There you go again.
March 31, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Huh? Again, not what I said at all. I said use overwhelming force, wipe them out, and the captured are treated in accord with the geneva conventions. How is that being nicer?
March 31, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
it's called a 'joke'. empty hyperbole for empty hyperbole.
you'd think someone who actually voted to elect sarah palin to be one of john mccain's heartbeats away from the presidency would be able to recognize humor.... huh.
March 31, 2009 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rachel Maddow did a routine very much like this on a few shows last week (on awkward and unmemorable acronyms for "war on terror." Just sayin'.
March 31, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Silence is the best response to defining criminals. Terrorists are criminals, don't make them warriors by calling it a war, like the king did. Totally stupid. I'm glad they finally dumped this stupid bumper sticker slogan. It made no sense and was great propoganda for the likes of osama bin laden.
Maybe they can dump homeland security next. I definitely want to see that nazi sounding name changed.
March 31, 2009 9:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I absolutely hated the term GWOT. It always reminds me of Bush and he lying to get us into the Iraq War.
March 31, 2009 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Global Campaign to move General Petraeus' drinks cabinet six inches closer to Kabul.
March 31, 2009 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank God! I can sleep at night once again. Just last night I woke up in a cold sweat yelling the acronym GWOT over and over at the top of my lungs, causing my wife to pee herself.
March 31, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe "Futile Unwarranted Civilian Killing". I'm still working on "Cluster".
March 31, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm so proud that sanity has taken the helm, it is a tangible sign that we are on the road to progress in international relations. GWOT was not just jargon, the labeling represented a mindset, one that is thankfully unacceptable in the current administration.
March 31, 2009 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely...you don't want to call a terrorist a terrorist...it may offend him.
March 31, 2009 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what the poster is saying, nor am I as well. Obviously, a terrorist is a terrorist. Also, in case you weren't aware, terrorism is a tactic. You can't have a "war" against a tactic, it makes no sense. But sense, isn't something that the right wingers have a lot of lately.
March 31, 2009 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Brilliant elucidation.
March 31, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nations often succeed in winning wars on other nations, upon entities that purport to be nations, upon organizations that purport to be the government of nations, and, sometimes, even upon organizations that seek to supplant governments.
In this modern age, where non-state organizations without any pretense of statehood are capable of engaging in acts of war against states, it also seems likely that war against such organizations could be winnable, even though international law has yet to adequately address the paramaters defining how that war can be conducted legally.
However, I have never heard of a nation that managed to win a war on a non-personal noun. The U.S. record in winning wars on nouns is certainly one of unrelieved failure.
Defining who we're at war with as being a defined and definable group of people, rather than upon a word, or even upon a tactic that's been around for at least a couple of thousand years, would seem to be a good step towards defining the goal such that failure is not foreordained.
Mind you, it does mean that the administration will have to forego the glittering opportunities for fearmongering for partisan advantage and extraconstitutional power grabs inherent in declaring war on a scary noun, but that's one of those things that people who aren't psychotic have to accept when they win elections.
March 31, 2009 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point: you're saying that it should have been "The War against Al Quaeda." Simple. Specific. Winable.
Most wars against non personal nouns fail. The war on poverty? Well, unfortunately, we still have poverty. The war on drugs? Please. The war on mediocrity? Maybe we have a chance on that one.
March 31, 2009 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah, the poster child for the loss of the war on mediocrity was the king. Lost that one big time. I don't think we'll ever win these types of wars. Too philosophic.
March 31, 2009 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's also kind of hard to task a Marine amphibious assault group when your enemy is "dandruff" or "sleep deprivation" or something.
March 31, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
March 31, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
What Michael A. said.
March 31, 2009 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem with dropping the term, but I am a touch concerned that your typical "low information voter" is going to take this as a sign that Obama is going to be "soft on terrorism." And the right wing will only be too happy to reinforce that idea.
March 31, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was everyone's nightmare, not just ours.
March 31, 2009 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have always thought that GWOT was a shitty title and very non-reflective of the real problem and solution.
Number One, why does everything need to be a war? "War of Poverty" "War on Drugs" etc. and no doubt we will soon be in another "War on Foreclosures" we have certainly been in a "War on Capitalism" for the last 30 years. (side bar: looks like to me that a great many Republicans and some democrats have the same drug induced brain damage as George W. when it comes to this Ponzi Scheme we call the Financial Industry which in no way is anything approaching Capitalism) Back to subject: Seems as if us Americans are obsessed with war, and quite frankly, I think we are the most warlike nation on this planet. That is that old case of "If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem is a nail." Mind you, I am all for having the strongest military on the planet, but that requires us to exercise more wisdom and restraint in its use.
I think we should STOP declaring war on every problem.
And, if we are, why did not Congress declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan? Why was the money spent on them not in the budget? If these wars were so critical to the survival of our Republic, why did George W and Congress not institute a draft?
My personal answer is, at least with respect to Iraq, our brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, and daughters (over 4,000 of them and 100s of 1,000s of Iraqis) were sacrificed for George W's person vendetta against Suddam Hussien. Do not forget our run-up to the war when George W publicly said, "He tried to kill my daddy!" That is when I knew our Nation and its military was about to be abused.
It needs to be understood that terrorists and their actions are criminal in nature and structure. Other nations have long experience in dealing with terrorism and it turns out that the best anti-terror strategies and tactics are that of LAW ENFORCEMENT that includes broad international cooperation. This would include sometimes using the military in the apprehension of terrorist. Nabbing Manuel Noriega in Panama (1989) with the military for law enforcement purposes. Why did H.W.'s brain damaged son not see the same strategy in chasing Bin Ladin into Pakistan. At that moment, we could have said to all nations, especially Pakistan, we will be in "Hot Pursuit" of Bin Ladin and if you let him or his followers into your country, we will chase him their, just stay out of the way, or help us, either way, we are going to get him. And if Pakistan decides to be offend and rattles its nukes at us. We can just show them one of our missile submarines waiting for launch orders if any nuclear arm country would like to protest.
So we could accomplish two things, every one would know we are serious that we will not tolerate nation state harboring terrorist and second the terrorist leaders would know that when they send a weak minded idiot on a suicide mission, it is their own suicide mission-sure and swift. We are actually less safe for George W's handling of Bin Ladin, he got away with it and he know it and has no deterrent for the future.
March 31, 2009 11:32 AM | Reply | Permalink