Bush administration takes a positive step

[ACPlayer]

As far as I know this has not been reported widely in the press. I think it is a good step.

White house to drop "war on terror" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/?feed=TopNews&article=UPI-1-20050726-20185800-bc-us-terrorslogan.xml)

The entire exercise should never have been called a war. It is not possible, IMO, to have a war against a concept or a tactic. It is only possible to fight against a political group or nation. The use of this term has encouraged some to consider this as a war against Islam as that is the only real political entity that is in common with the criminals. Clearly too, this is not a war against Islam.

The war on terror should correctly be categorized as part of normal (though spotlighted) criminal enforcement. I hope we can drop that expression from our lexicon. I hope the Bush administration follows up. I hope the Bush administration turns its attention to understanding the psychology of the terrorists rather than focussing on the tactics. Eventually there will be a political solution -- the sooner the better.

[Matty]

This is good news. Now if only we could turn this light onto the war on drugs.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
Now if only we could turn this light onto the war on drugs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seconded.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The entire exercise should never have been called a war. It is not possible, IMO, to have a war against a concept or a tactic.

[/ QUOTE ]

"We declared war on terror. We declared war on terror -- it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui " - Jon Stewart

[FishHooks]

Well what would you call this "war on terror then?"

[ptmusic]

War on Al Queda; perhaps even more specific than that (i.e. war on Bin Laden's Al Queda). If Bush had called it that from the get-go, it would have focused our efforts, and we could have avoided costly mistakes.

-ptmusic

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
Well what would you call this "war on terror then?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"War against violent extremism" (most politically correct version) or "War against violent Islamic extremism" (most accurate version).

[whiskeytown]

the most positive step the Bush Administration could take right now is the first one out of the White House -

Democrats have been saying this for years...so have Military Strategists who point out that a war is unwinable without clear objectives.

rb

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
War on Al Queda

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everyone were fighting in this war on terror is part of Al Queda.

[FishHooks]

Yea calling this a war against violent islamic extremism would really isolate the islamic community, lets try to piss of the least amount of islamics as we can.

[lehighguy]

In addition to what Fishhook said, an integral part of fighting Al Quida is fighting the entire economic, political, and cultural infrastructure that allows them and similair terrorist entities to function.

War on Terror sounds like a good way of encompassing that entire idea.

Sounds like you've succeeded in convincing Bush that treating the symptoms is much better then the causes. Great job guys. I look foward to random bag searches for the next thirty years while we don't do anything to strike at the fundamental causes of terrorism.

[Triumph36]

"Having a war on terror is like having a war on jealousy. You ain't gonna win it." - David Cross

Silly phrase to begin with. Rather than war, it should be 'fight'. Perhaps 'fight against terrorism', though that doesn't have quite the Fox News whoosh that war on terror did.

[Triumph36]

I always thought War on Terror sounded the other way around, lehigh. It sounded like the symptoms would be fought against (namely, the terror), and the causes left unexamined, because, hey, we've got a War going on here, we don't have time for that.

Wars by definition don't attack causes, they 'treat' symptoms.

[lehighguy]

Well as I said, that's not the way I looked at the "War on Terror". I saw it as a shorthand for a much larger war on the causes of terrorism.

The feeling I've always gotten from the left is they felt we should go after Osama, but do nothing to change the economics, politics, or culture that lead to his creation or allowed him to operate.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Wars by definition don't attack causes, they 'treat' symptoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

What symptom did WW2 treat, I believe we were attacking the cause of a well known Nazi leader named Hitler

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]


White House drops 'war on terror' slogan

WASHINGTON, July 26 (UPI) -- The Bush administration has begun downplaying the "war on terror" in favor of "a global struggle against violent extremism," the New York Times reports.



[/ QUOTE ]

There was once a 'war on poverty’; I assume this has ceased operations. It was a domestic war.

"a global struggle against violent extremism,"

I don't think this wording is any improvement; it is in fact, a step backward. 'War on Terror' is a simple straightforward phrase that works well on many levels and in so many ways and is also easily understood by the throbbing masses. Its propaganda value is very high. The watered down version from the article is too amorphous in the wrong direction, If you understand what I mean.

"a global struggle against violent extremism,"

I assume this would include the US overthrow of the Iraq government.

So you see, this wording change is a bad idea.

-Zeno

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
"We declared war on terror. We declared war on terror -- it's not even a noun, so, good luck. After we defeat it, I'm sure we'll take on that bastard ennui " - Jon Stewart

[/ QUOTE ]

If GWB said this, he'd be mocked endlessly... Jon Stewart gets quoted for his wittiness

[mackthefork]

Hopefully this will be the start of the end to using peoples fear as a political tool to win votes in all countries, somehow I doubt it though.

Mack

[Cumulonimbus]

[ QUOTE ]
Well what would you call this "war on terror then?"

[/ QUOTE ]

A War on American Freedoms. Duh.

[Triumph36]

Haha. Did the United States go to war to fight the causes of Hitler's rise? Of course not, that isn't possible. They couldn't send soldiers back in time to battle the Weimar Republic and the Treaty of Versailles.

Osama Bin Laden is not the cause of terrorism, he is a symptom. You make it sound like, by your ludicrous WWII comparison, that if we took out the top of the Al-Qaeda network, that terrorism would end forever. It won't. That is why it is a fight and not a war. We're fighting against the symptoms and the causes.

[lehighguy]

My entire point was that we shouldn't be focused on just Osama. My entire point is that getting rid of him solves nothing. If it were just about Osama then it wouldn't be a war it would be a police action.

Currently the middle east is led by despots and religous nuts. Its people are often illiterate, uneducated, and have no hope for advancement.

Solve the problems driving terrorism: broken states, dictators, economic dependence on oil, and religous intolerance. Once you do that we will not only have an easier time against Osama, someone won't just replace him after we capture him.

That is what the war on terror is about, at least the way I understand it.

[Matty]

Well apparently the Administration is taking the step, but their leader refuses.

President Bush "publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists," the New York Times reports. Some top officials had started using the phrase "global struggle against violent extremism" to describe what Bush had once called the "global war on terror."

"It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy."

Said the president: "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

However, the AP notes Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld still isn't listening and refers to the conflict as a "struggle between civilization and extremists."

http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8BNUDQG1.html

[tessarji]

[ QUOTE ]
Its people are often illiterate, uneducated, and have no hope for advancement.

Solve the problems driving terrorism: broken states, dictators, economic dependence on oil, and religous intolerance. Once you do that we will not only have an easier time against Osama, someone won't just replace him after we capture him.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is absolutely and completely correct.

Osama should have been a police action. He's a criminal, round him up and throw him in a dark hole for the rest of his life and then some. Have our senators vote $50 billion to this posse job, I don't care, it'd be worth it.

Then take the other $150 billion we spent on a brutal, ineffective, deceptive and poorly planned war and use it instead for economic relief in the middle east, education and literacy programs, research and development in energy, and political incentive programs.

If there's a bastard in the Middle East we don't like, he doesn't get any of our money. But maybe next time we'll avoid killing a hundred thousand people to throw this other, cruel but basically irrelevant dirtbag in prison.

[FishHooks]

[ QUOTE ]
Osama should have been a police action.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you know anything about the 9/11 commission report this was the problem, the Clinton administration treated him as a criminal. Clinton didn't consider him a terrorist and only a criminal.

[ACPlayer]

If we cant figure out how to get the Dept of Defense to agree with the president on what activity is underway, any wonder we make no progress in Iraq or in getting at the real culprits on 9/11.

I suspect that W likes the idea of calling it a war so he can play commander in chief and maybe has a shot at another topgun act on carrier. "Really Dick, it was a sooooo fun!"

These guys are totally incompetent.