The Administration Stands By Term 'Global War on Terror'
Is the administration disavowing the term "Global War on Terror"? A report by Al Kamen yesterday suggested maybe. The question arises because of an email Dave Riedel of the Office of Security Review sent to Pentagon staffers informing them that "OMB says: 'This Administration prefers to avoid using the term "Long War" or "Global War on Terror" [GWOT]. Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'"
As luck would have it, though, OMB director Peter Orszag held a conference call with reporters this morning to answer questions about the budget, and fielded a question about this very issue.
"I sometimes am amused by the things I read in the press," Orszag said. "I'm not aware of any communication I've had on that issue. It was a communication by a mid-level career civil service."
So GWOT it is. That doesn't mean the Riedel email didn't go out, though, and some (me, for instance) wonder if some at the Pentagon might stick with the supposedly new moniker (Overseas Contingency Operation) leading to amusing confusion on the Hill.
This has been a problem for the government for some time, and to such an extent that even George Bush was willing to admit error. "We actually misnamed the war on terror," Bush said in August 2004. "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." Touche.
















Huh? How do Orszag's comments add up to the Obama administration "standing by" the phrase Global War on Terror. Did Orszag actually use the phrase, or express support for it. Or did he just deny getting the email.
March 25, 2009 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
The implication is that since it's not a high-level directive, the status quo remains in large part unchanged even if some mid-level usages are being changed.
The new term is much broader in its scope than GWOT. That is, contingencies aren't just about terror. So if the mid-level discussions involve other than supposedly direct confrontations with alleged terrorists, GWOT is too narrow as a label.
March 25, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this may miss the point: Obama isn't renaming the GWOT, he might not be using the concept. Just coming up with a new name for a bad idea won't fix it.
March 25, 2009 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no FUCKING WAR! It's a FABRICATION! ENOUGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
March 25, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its a waste of time and energy to discuss the validity of the term or make phrasing a national debate.
Best way is to latently steer away from it. Erode it from national psyche, without challenging or inviting a caustic and never ending debate.
March 25, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remember Rachel covering this last night, simply hilarious.
March 25, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
WWDD?
What would Dennis do?
Bernie/Dennis 2012.
March 25, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Obama is an intelligent man, I'm sure he can come up with something better than this.
An observation by Terry Jones:
http://www.amazon.com/Terry-Joness-War-Terror-Denunciations/dp/1560256532
March 26, 2009 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The terminology only matters to members of the press and people trying to sell the war.
March 31, 2009 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink