Obama Declares War on Terrorism Over, page 1

privacy

Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times

Topic started on 7-8-2009 @ 07:52 AM by Silenceisall

Well, Obama has declared the so called War on Terrorism over. I don't know if this signals a larger change in policy, but it is nice to see some of the inflamatory language racheted down.

From the article in The Globe and Mail (www.theglobeandmail.com...)

The “global war on terrorism” is over and calling it that was a bad idea, President Barack Obama's counterterrorism adviser said Thursday.

The phrase, coined by former president George W. Bush and often rendered in Washington speak as GWOT (pronounced “gee whot”) enraged many of his critics who argued that it was impossible to wage war on a tactic (or a noun). Mr. Obama has studiously avoided the phase and Thursday, John Brennan, the top White House adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism, explained why.

In his first public speech, the veteran CIA agent said that the shift is more sweeping than a change in vocabulary and that it reflects the President's broad philosophical approach.

“The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,' ” Mr. Brennan said in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “That is because terrorism is but a tactic, a means to an end, which in al-Qaeda's case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate. Confusing ends and means is dangerous, because by focusing on the tactic, we risk floundering among the terrorist trees while missing the growth of the extremist forest.”

Similarly, Mr. Brennan said, Mr. Obama “does not describe this as a global war, believing it makes al-Qaeda too big and important.

“Describing our efforts as a global war only plays into the warped narrative that al-Qaeda propagates. It plays into the misleading and dangerous notion” that the United States is fighting “the very image that al-Qaeda seeks to project of itself – that it is a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate.”

[edit on 7-8-2009 by Silenceisall]

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 08:03 AM by thisguyrighthere

Useless semantic game. We'll keep out army spread all over the world and we'll keep dropping bombs on villages and we'll keep creating and pushing spy programs nationally and globally and we'll keep drumming up boogeyman fear.

Call me when Obama shuts down all the spying, stops it with the "extremist" reports, shuts down the global military bases, brings everyone home etc...

Until he does that he's just another authoritarian jackass whipping us all in the back until we agree to be called Toby.

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 08:16 AM by Silenceisall

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

I don't know. I can't help but hope that this signals the begining of a new approach. Perhaps it's nothing more than word games, but it certainly doesn't hurt to eliminate the harmful idea that the US is at war. The American people have been force fed enough fear and loathing in the last eight years for 20 lifetimes.

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 08:19 AM by Bratac

Originally posted by Silenceisall
Confusing ends and means is dangerous, because by focusing on the tactic, we risk floundering among the terrorist trees while missing the growth of the extremist forest.”

And that's exactly what we've been doing for he past 6 years. Floundering while they grow.

Worse, or just as bad, is the fact that people who think of this as a GWOT, see the "enemy" in equally elusive terms and end up identifying the enemy as the entire religion of Islam or all people from Arabic parts of the world instead of the true enemy, the violent extremists. And this is just what the Bush administration wanted to happen. Unfortunate that so many fell for that.

It's not just semantics. Not by a long shot. It has become part of our culture. Changing the phrase now isn't going to change people's recent hatred and fear of Islam, Muslims or Arabic people, but it's a positive sign that this administration has a clearer idea of what we're dealing with and has a better chance of being successful than the last.

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 08:32 AM by jibeho

No surprise from Obama. He sending a clear signal to the world. On national matters he wants to run and control this country with an iron fist. Internationally, he wants to project the appearance of being timid and cool.

The Lebowski approach to international diplomacy. "Its all cool, let's just back off a little and use some different jargon" That should work.

Our terrorist enemies despise the Western culture and Obama's play on words won't change that.

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 08:39 AM by InfaRedMan

I guess Obama feels that by changing a word here and there, people will be fooled into thinking he is actually doing something. So far Obama has served up nothing but sound bites & hollow pie.

IRM

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 09:12 AM by PsykoOps

So when can you expect Patriot Act and other such invasive laws made for the war to be revoked? How about Gitmo then? So are the troops going home from Afganistan etc.?

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 09:44 AM by fraterormus

Oh how I wish this were true!

However, I agree that it is more spin-doctoring and political rhetoric...telling the people what they want to hear rather than actually putting an end to the War on Terror by closing Gitmo, disbanding the TSA, undoing the Patriot Act and all similar "panic" legislation enacted during the Bush Administration to fight the War on Terror, bringing our troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, bringing charges against the CIA and US Military and those Public Officials who gave them their orders for violations of Human Rights and Crimes against Humanity. These things, I fear, will never happen...which is why we still do not have credibility with our Allies and with our Foes.

It's a nice sentiment, but it would be even more nice if Obama were to put actions behind his words.

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 09:52 AM by Silenceisall

reply to post by fraterormus

Absolutely...getting rid of the Patriot Act would be far more meaningful. But then asking a politician to give up power is like trying to take candy from a child.

reply posted on 7-8-2009 @ 10:11 AM by rogerstigers

While I agree that it is semantics, you have to remember that semantics is what Politics is all about. Interesting revlation with this one, though. It shows the theme of Obama's strategy. He doesn't want to give our enemies, real or imaginary, the advantage of thinking that they are at all important to the U.S. We saw this first with N. Korea, especially with Sec. Clinton comparing them to teenage kids. Now we see this. It might work, but it also has the possibility of backfiring. What happens to unruly teenagers who are ignored? Usually, they get into more and more trouble.

Pages: ^^TOP^^