How about “The attempt to stop not very nice people who want to hurt other people really really bad”…

No one can be that surprised about this new development from the Democrats: The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget. This is not because the war has been won, lost……

So Nancy Pelosi went to Syria anyway, despite being asked not to by the White House and the Israelis. But nobody tells Nancy what to do, right? After all, she’s the ‘most powerful woman in America’. Just ask her. Now,…

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.

Really…….

I plan to use “global war on terror,” in every sentence. Call it what it is, “global war on terror,” CENSORSHIP! Who the hell are you to tell me what I can, or cannot say, “global war on terror,”! Why don’t you stick your memo up your “global war on terror,”! Go “global war on terror,” yourself, you bunch of Socialist cowards! I hope one day an Islamo Facists stands behind you in a Mall and “global war on terror,”! Your idiotic, schoolyard look at the world are going to get a lot of Americans “global war on terror,”! You do what you want, but I will never stop using “global war on terror,” just because you don’t want me to….. IDIOTS!

“global war on terror,”!

techno_barbarian on April 4, 2007 at 4:39 PM

Thanks for the reply — I guess bureaucracy is the same everywhere…. Was definitely frustrating for me to have to help install systems and applications that we knew were just luxury purchases which wouldn’t have been bought with normal unit funds.

I like it. Let’s be honest, we haven’t exactly fared too well in wars against abstract concepts

JaHerer22 on April 4, 2007 at 2:08 PM

Can you see any polyps while you’re up there, Captain Colonoscopy?

Who wants pie?

Still puzzled on the Global Warming link. Please elaborate if you have time.

Bradky on April 4, 2007 at 4:03 PM

No attack or aspersions cast, Bradky. The similarities to the way research funding of all kinds is done these days, struck me when I read your post. Particularly the rape and pillaging the available funding part.

techno_barbarian on April 4, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Not sure I follow the correlation with Global Warming. In terms of justification of funds for military units the commanders are responsible for making a valid case for funding requests that relate to the unit’s mission. GWOT funding is now six years old – my thought is that it was stood up as an emergency measure in the immediate aftermath of 9-11. Commanders have had time to adjust the mission and are familiar with how to describe it in funding requests. It was kind of a blank check albeit a necessary one at the time. This is not to say the GWOT is over, only an observation that blank checks are not a good idea.

Still puzzled on the Global Warming link. Please elaborate if you have time.

They are bound and determine to “own” the war, including the language. God help them on the day when our enemies strike us again.

As a former military IT guy I can say that the GWOT phrase was used to rape and pillage the available funding for many dubious purposes. Can’t get funding for new computers and servers? Find a link, no matter how thin to terror and you have a different pot of money from which to get money.

Kinda like the global warming campaign, huh? Just build a link, no matter how tenuous, to global climate change and the funds just magically fall in your lap. Do it not, and no funds for your research, no matter how valid.

Elitist extortion.

And on topic; we should call this conflict the The War To Save Western Civilization. Because that’s what it is.

Maybe some new language is just what we need to turn things around.

JaHerer22 on April 4, 2007 at 2:08 PM

You are right. And we should start with the language outlining the Rules of Engagement. Because simply changing from the “Global War on Terror” to the “Operations to Systematically and Diplomatically bring Peace to the World through our Efforts to Redirect Everyone’s Attention to how America is Causing Global Warming” just ain’t gonna cut it.

Global War on Stupidity.

Problem is … I can’t think of a better phrase. “War Against Al-Quaida” doesn’t cover it, since the conflict should theoretically include plenty of other organizations – anyone willing to use terrorism. Even “War on Islamic Fascism” or some variation won’t work, because (in theory at least) there could be other religious or non-religious groups that could become the enemy.

Arguably, we might have to attack North Korea as part of the GWOT. They aren’t very Islamic.

For efficiency and clarity of meaning, nothing beats GWOT.

The problem, of course, is that we haven’t treated the GWOT like an actual “global war on terror” since mid-2003.

I’ll be honest, I don’t really mind this change. I don’t think it really matters, but it’s hard to get exercised about this.

The “ban” only applies to the 2008 budget. Not to cmte hearings or even cmte documents. So instead of funding the GWOT, what you’ll be funding will be referred to using more specificity.

Silly little political ploy? Yeah. But far less egregious than, say, trying to prevent the DOD from using the terms.

armylawyer on April 4, 2007 at 1:36 PM

This is a huge tactical error on the part of Democrats. Canadian Imperialist Running Dog alluded to it. This is newspeak and it gives the Republicans an opportunity to accuse the Democrats of sticking their heads in the sand when it comes to terrorism. The biggest knock on the Democrats is that they are weak on national defense and here they go trying to take the word terrorism out of the common lexicon for this war.

We should be beating them over the head with this until the general election every time they say they will be tough on the war on terror: “But you couldn’t even say the war on terror. Is the word to scary to you?”

Thank G_d we have these people as adversaries.