The War On Terror®

So I guess we have unceremoniously retired the phrase “War on Terror,” and I didn’t even get a memo in advance. There isn’t much left to lampoon now that the folks at the Daily Show have had their way.

At any rate, the War on Terror® is now The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism®. Fine.

Just one minor hitch, as the BullDog Manifesto notes:

One of the many definitions of jihad is ‘struggle.’

If you thought Bush’s crusades gaffe was neato, this is just a peach. You can be sure that The Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism® will almost certainly be cast as a ‘jihad against Islam.’

34 replies
  1. 1
    Profbacon says:

    They changed the name because GWOT sounded stupid.

    Now it’s GSAVE! That was the problem with World War II, they didn’t have a good anagram. If Roosevelt really knew what he was doing, he would have given the conflict a snappy name.

  2. 2
    ppGaz says:

    Whatever they call it, they apparently have no idea how to go about it.

  3. 3
    SomeCallMeTim says:

    Seriously, John: can you deny that, with regard to policy, we’ve pretty much been right about f**king everything?

  4. 4
    Andrei says:

    This adminsnitration also seems to have forgotten that “kampf” means struggle in German. As in “Mein Kampf.”

  5. 5
    Stormy70 says:

    I don’t mind if we go on Jihad against Terrorism. And the Crusade comment didn’t bother me, either. If the Muslim world is so hung up on events in the Middle Ages, then that sounds like a personal problem to me. Seriously, why are we expected to walk on eggshells, while Islamic fascists are blowing us up, and beheading innocent civilians. Sorry, I am not feeling very sensitive towards the terrorists’ feelings on the use of Jihad or Crusade.

  6. 6
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    You won’t care Stormy about this, but I feel obligated to at least engage in a little sadonecrobestiality.

    It’s not the actual terrorists we care about. It’s their support structure, the face masses of the ME, of Islam who perceive Bush’s words as a Jihad/War on Islam; and get worried, and support those who attack Americans because Americans are out to get them.

    It’s about not creating new enemies, or else this war will never end. Unless, you contemplate genocide, and wipe them off the face of the planet, every last one. Which I don’t consider a viable option.

  7. 7
    Richard Bottoms says:

    So let’s, the so-called looney left has been saying for about 2 years that military action alone won’t eliminate terrorism. Further that a war on terror is dumb because terror is a tactic, not a enemy. And now Bush says it too. Hooray!

    Also, liberals asking for a plan on how we leave Iraq is bad, unless the Iraqi’s are the ones saying get out and the general’s, facing reality acknowledge we can’t keep up this pace without destroying our military, say it too.

    I get it.

  8. 8
    Don Surber says:

    Some “failure” We established the first democracy in Afghanistan, overthrew the man who was financing the terrorism of Israel, held the first free election in a Muslim Arab state ever, forced Libya to give up WMD research, got the first breakthrough in Israel-PLO and oh, by the way, stopped numerous terrorism attacks on our own soil.

    All this without putting Bill Maher, Bill Press, Ari Huffington, Susan Sontag and YOU in prison for four years of whining about “failure”

    Of course, Bill Clinton would have had a snappy name. Let’s see Throw A Missile At A Madman To Divert Attention From Your Girlfriend’s Appreance Before A Grand Jury (TAMAMDAFY)

    Drink your Kool-Aid, children.

  9. 9
    Stormy70 says:

    It’s not the actual terrorists we care about. It’s their support structure, the face masses of the ME, of Islam who perceive Bush’s words as a Jihad/War on Islam; and get worried, and support those who attack Americans because Americans are out to get them.

    Muslim’s views are changing for the better right now, and their media is starting to turn the eye on their internal problem with Islamic radicals. It is a wonderful sign, but this hang-up over events hundreds of years in the past needs to be addressed. It is time for them to some serious contemplating about their future and not their past. Hopefully, it is starting to happen. What is happening in Egypt is very encouraging. The state run media is actually starting to say their is a serious problem with Muslims excusing the radicals in their midst.

  10. 10
    Aaron says:

    Let’s see: we are supposed to believe that Jihad does not refer to the 7th century holy wars that spread Islam all over Christian lands, but they cannot deal with Crusade having other meanings than seizing Jerusalem.?

    Jihad is some kind of “inner struggle.” We all know that now.

    Never once was a Jihad a bad thing that might upset people.

  11. 11
    p.lukasiak says:

    considering the militantly violent and extremist nature of the Bush regime, and how it appears to be falling apart at its seams, I’d say the Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism is off to a good start….

    now, if we can just do something about terrorism….

  12. 12
    John S. says:

    Drink your Kool-Aid, children.

    There’s no Kool-Aid left, Don.

    You apparently drank it all.

  13. 13
    DougJ says:

    You can make fun of this new slogan all you want, but you must admit it is more accurate than the old one. And the acronym GSAVE makes it easy to remember.

    The problem that the president has right now is mostly one of public relations. Iraq is going quite well — better than anyone could have expected — and the Patriot Act and other reforms have helped keep us from being attacked since 9/11. Really, the only problem is the public’s faltering confidence, which is mostly a result of the MSM’s jihad — er, struggle — against the White House.

    So, yes, a new slogan is exactly what we need at this point. You can laugh but you fight bad PR with new slogans.

  14. 14
    Sojourner says:

    The two major principles of the Bush administration’s national security policy:

    1. Cut and run when the political risks get too high

    2. Rename the policy in the hope that nobody will notice the previous one was a whopping failure.

    I wonder if Luntz focus grouped it first.

  15. 15

    John S.,

    You beat me to the punch. (no pun intended!). I was about to tell Don the same thing.

    Democracy in Afghanistan? BUWAHAHA!!! LOL. Yeah, suuuuure. Heck, we don’t even have a democracy here in the USA. I love the way the ditto heads actually believe that crap.

    Stopped numerous terrorist attacks? You mean they actually restrained themselves? ;-)

  16. 16
    John S. says:

    Iraq is going quite well—- better than anyone could have expected—and the Patriot Act and other reforms have helped keep us from being attacked since 9/11.

    I will attempt to type whilst laughing so hard that my fingers are shaking, but would you happen to have anything (in terms of substantiating evidence) that proves:

    1. The Iraq War is going better than anyone had expected.
    2. The Patriot Act (and which other reforms?) have prevented more terrorist attack.

    Apparently, Don left some Kool-Aid down in the bottom of the bowl, if you look hard enough for it…

  17. 17
    DecidedFenceSitter says:

    Some “failure” We established the first democracy in Afghanistan, overthrew the man who was financing the terrorism of Israel, held the first free election in a Muslim Arab state ever, forced Libya to give up WMD research, got the first breakthrough in Israel-PLO and oh, by the way, stopped numerous terrorism attacks on our own soil.

    I’ll grant you the establishing of a democratic government after the first transfer of power; maybe the second. When it occurs without gunfire or coup, then it’s a democratic regime; until then it’s still just a pipe dream.

    Yes, we overthrew an evil man; but at what cost? The realpolitik makes me wonder if it was worth the cost. I hope it will be; but sometimes I wonder. I don’t think we’ll know for a good 10-20 years.

    As far as elections go? Lebanon has been having them for a while. Sure, Syria’s been in there; but they were invited in, and the UN Security Council, of which the U.S. has veto rights, put them there to establish the peace between the three warring religious factions. Sounds like a familiar tune.

    First breathrough in PLO relations? Hardly. Yitzhak Rabin, I think, should get that major reward, though there were probably a million little steps before that. It put a corrupt man in power; Arafat, but it was the first major step.

    Numerous? Depends on your definition. See the Simpsons:

    “There’s not a single bear in sight—the ‘Bear Patrol’ is working like a charm”.
    “That’s specious reasoning,” Lisa retorts.
    “Thanks, honey,” Homer says to her, adoringly.
    “According to your logic,” she says, picking up a stone from their lawn, “this rock keeps tigers away”.
    “Hmmm. How does it work?”
    “It doesn’t.”
    “How so?” Homer asks further.
    “It’s just a rock,” she says. “But I don’t see a tiger, anywhere.”
    “Lisa,” concludes Homer, while pulling out his wallet, “I want to buy your rock.”

  18. 18
    John S. says:

    Heck, we don’t even have a democracy here in the USA.

    That is 100% correct. We have a Federal Republic with a strong tradition of Democracy. Traditions can be broken and made anew (they often are).

    If anyone doubts this assessment of our government, check with the CIA.

  19. 19
    DougJ says:

    It’s a good slogan, whether you libs like it or not.

    Freedom is on the march.

  20. 20
    The Quiet Storm says:

    Has anyone reminded Don that Afganistan is now the world’s biggest producer of poppies (for heroin) and that it is dangerously close to becoming a Narco State like Columbia?

    Hint: The flowers and dancing phase in both Iraq and Afganistan are over.

  21. 21
    John Cole says:

    You can make fun of this new slogan all you want, but you must admit it is more accurate than the old one. And the acronym GSAVE makes it easy to remember.

    You had trouble remembering “War on Terror?”

  22. 22
    DougJ says:

    “You had trouble remembering “War on Terror?””

    No, but WOT or GWOT doesn’t sound so good.

  23. 23
    Sojourner says:

    No, but WOT or GWOT doesn’t sound so good.

    True. It could be confused with waste of time or great waste of time.

  24. 24
    John S. says:

    It’s a good slogan, whether you libs like it or not.

    Yes, conservatives do love their slogans. Without them, they wouldn’t really know what it is they are rallying behind. And, it makes it easier for them to get behind something without being bothered by knowing what it is exactly they are supporting.

    Freedom is on the march.

    See what I mean?

    And Doug, still waiting for you to cite evidence that:

    1. The Iraq War is going better than anyone had expected.
    2. The Patriot Act (and which other reforms?) have prevented more terrorist attack.

    I daresay I will be holding my breath.

  25. 25
    DougJ says:

    Where was all the outrage from liberal/RINO commmunity when, say Kentucky Fried Chicken started calling itself KFC or when Anderson changed its name to Accenture? Oh, I see, it’s only bad when the Bush administration does it. The same way torture is fine when Saddam Hussein does it but it is a threat to civilization when the Bush administration does it. The same way lying to a jury is fine for Clinton but is treasonous when a Bush admin official does it.

    Quite a double standard you’ve got going there, isn’t it?

  26. 26
    John S. says:

    Where was all the outrage from liberal/RINO commmunity when, say Kentucky Fried Chicken started calling itself KFC or when Anderson changed its name to Accenture?

    So you want to hold the practices of government to the standards of big corporations and their marketing machine?

    Might I remind you, Doug, that the government is not a corporation, but thanks for pointing out that this administration is engaged in the use of the same cheap marketing tricks that corporations employ to sell a product. Or are you implying that ‘freedom’ and ‘democracy’ are merely products America is selling?

    The same way torture is fine when Saddam Hussein does it but it is a threat to civilization when the Bush administration does it.

    Thanks for showing everyone the danger of moral relativism (and for pointing out that the Bush administration engages in torture much the same way Saddam did).

    The same way lying to a jury is fine for Clinton but is treasonous when a Bush admin official does it.

    Thanks – yet again – for showing us where moral relativism can lead us. Clinton lying to a jury wasn’t fine. He got impeached for it. And by your standard, any member of Bush’s administration found guilty of lying to a jury must be treated as thus.

    Quite a double standard you’ve got going there, isn’t it?

    Yes, Doug, that is quite the double standard you have there. But I will only hold you to your own standards, though I doubt your Republicans will be able to live up to them.

  27. 27
    ppGaz says:

    Muslim’s views are changing for the better right now, and their media is starting to turn the eye on their internal problem with Islamic radicals. It is a wonderful sign

    If you hang around here long enough, you’ll see everything.

    That’s right Stormy. Terrorism is in its Last Throes, wouldn’t you say?

    Are you getting into the scotch a little early today?

  28. 28

    […] The War On Terror® […]

  29. 29
    Sojourner says:

    The War On Terror®

    Can’t wait to see the new logo.

  30. 30
    Otto Man says:

    Where was all the outrage from liberal/RINO commmunity when, say Kentucky Fried Chicken started calling itself KFC or when Anderson changed its name to Accenture? Oh, I see, it’s only bad when the Bush administration does it.

    I think ppGaz needs to amend yesterday’s statement. This is clearly stupider than DougJ’s last deep thought.

  31. 31
    Sojourner says:

    I think ppGaz needs to amend yesterday’s statement. This is clearly stupider than DougJ’s last deep thought.

    I stopped trying to pick a winner (or is that loser) because Dougie continues to top himself.

  32. 32
    eRobin says:

    The Communists also had a love affair with the word “struggle.” It’s a loaded word and Team BushCo should have avoided it and stuck with “war.” That way they could spend some time on figuring out how to solve the problem instead of winning the fucking PR struggles, wars, whatever – which is all they really care about.

  33. 33
    Diana says:

    “Don that Afganistan is now the world’s biggest producer of poppies (for heroin) and that it is dangerously close to becoming a Narco State like Columbia?

    “Hint: The flowers and dancing phase in both Iraq and Afganistan are over.

    Actually, it sounds like the flower phase in Afganistan is just seriously getting underway. Those poppies are finally being put to good use … what, you thought flowers were for decoration?

  34. 34
    Ryan says:

    Where was all the outrage from liberal/RINO commmunity when, say Kentucky Fried Chicken started calling itself KFC or when Anderson changed its name to Accenture? Oh, I see, it’s only bad when the Bush administration does it.

    I didn’t eat at KFC before, and I don’t eat there now. Why should I bother with what they say? Most people with political views are not protestors chanting in the streets. Unless it’s the phone company or some corporation with a crucial monopoly, if a business upsets you the best response is to just stop buying from it.

    Of course, the analogy doesn’t really transfer to politics. Nobody’s arguing about whether KFC’s food is fried or not. We still know it is. KFC isn’t pressuring the media or using taxpayer dollars to launch propaganda campaigns. Nobody demands that I support KFC or insists I’m a traitor for not eating there. KFC isn’t sucking billions in tax dollars.

    In short, I’ve given KFC as little support as possible, and what they do doesn’t impact my life. And everyone is pretty much okay with that as a solution, end of story.

    The thing with politics, I can’t just say “I’m going to go my way and let other people go theirs.” What Republicans do is done in the name of Democrats and Independants and vice versa. Their prodjects are put on our tab… and vice versa. We’re chained at the leg.

    Torture was not fine when Saddam did it. It was part of the reason he was viewed as evil by the world and his own country. Which is why the symbolism of Abu Ghraib was so damning – Bush had made himself an unelected leader torturing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib, same as Saddam. Hopefully, it was just short term. We’ll stop and people will forget. History doesn’t seem to indicate that, though. We just outsource torture to other nations and cultures, same as a generation ago in El Mozote, El Salvador with the Alcatel.

    I’m not an Iraqi and I wasn’t responsible for Saddam’s activities the same way that I’m responsible for what Bush does, so I’m going to get more pissed off when it’s an American killing prisoners using waterboards the same way that you’d be more affected by a murder if it was your relative who committed the crime.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] The War On Terror® […]

Comments are closed.