A month ago, the International Commission of Jurists urged the White House to change the term ‘War on Terror’ because it “justifies the violations of humanitarian law and human rights.” Some sectors of the army had also requested a change of title because it gathers under a single name all the policies that deal with different enemies.
George W. Bush liked the term ‘War on Terror’ so much that he resisted changing it even when Donald Rumsfeld suggested ‘Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism,’ a clearer and more operational nomenclature.
On its second presidential term, the Bush Administration no longer used such terms as ‘mujahideens,’ ‘jihadists,’ and ‘Islamofascism’ because of their contingent offensive and derogatory implications. During the election campaign, then candidate for the Republican nomination Rudy Giuliani accused Obama of refusing to use ‘Islamic terrorism.’ And recently, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano was criticized by the right for not using the word ‘terrorism’ and changing it to ‘man-made disasters.’ Napolitano defended it as an attempt to “turn the page on the policies of fear.”
The phrase ‘War on Terror’ is a Bush-administration term that covers the internal and external policies meant to avoid another 9/11. It is a catch-all phrase that means the policies and combined budgets for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Guantanamo, and eavesdropping on American soil. Today, the U.S. is no longer “waging a global war on terror” that is why the term has to go, so the Obama administration thinks.
According to a memorandum sent by email in the Pentagon, as revealed by The Washington Post, the instructions specified that the current administration prefers to avoid using the terms ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror.’
The new term that has been ordered to be used is ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’
As of June 30, 2008, the cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Global War on Terror operations since 9/11 is $864 billion. This total covers all war-related appropriations from FY2001 through part of FY2009 in supplementals, regular appropriations, and continuing resolutions. In 2009, the cost of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is $136 billion.
Posted by GSerrano on March 31, 2009 in News + Politics · 4 Comments
Perception is reality. Overseas Contingency Operation?
Why don’t we ask soldiers who have lived on the front lines in Afghanistan about whether this is a War? I just read the book “Afghan Journal – A Soldier’s Year in Afghanistan” by Jeff Courter. It’s just one account of what it’s like to help Afghans claim peace in a distant and dangerous corner of the world. But I think it makes a strong case for everyone to understand that the Taliban has terrorized the Afghan’s long enough. If we don’t claim this as a war – how can we expect to help the Afghans “win” any ground at all?
By all indications (the latest 17,000 troop surge just last month, I think), the US-NATO military operations in Afghanistan is, indeed, a war. They are just calling it by another name for PR purposes. The 2009 budget isn’t really different from the war budgets of previous years under the banner of ‘War on Terror.’
What strikes me as odd is the fact that nowhere is there any military analysis (none published or caught by media) on the factor of drug addiction in Afghanistan. The population is hooked on heroin as it is practically Afghanistan’s biggest export, owing to their vast poppy plantations. The Taliban exacts 10% tax off these poppy farmers to finance their operations. So, in effect, so long as the angle of drugs (production, trafficking, and addiction) isn’t considered, the war in Afghanistan can never really be solved.
Thanks for dropping by!
Ok, so we don’t call it a war on terror anymore. Does this mean we don’t continue to wage war on those who would bring terror to this great country? As soon as we stop taking the war to the terrorists they will surely bring more attacks to us. Go ahead, change the name but for heavens sake don’t change the policies that have kept us safe since 9/11/01. Scott snyder
Just boomarked this specific post for future reference, good post!