war on terrorism is over

500grains

Member
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
15
White House: 'War on terrorism' is over
'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms

By Jon Ward and Eli Lake WASHINGTON TIMES


It's official. The U.S. is no longer engaged in a "war on terrorism." Neither is it fighting "jihadists" or in a "global war."

President Obama's top homeland security and counterterrorism official took all three terms off the table of acceptable words inside the White House during a speech Thursday at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.

"The President does not describe this as a 'war on terrorism,'" said John Brennan, head of the White House homeland security office, who outlined a "new way of seeing" the fight against terrorism.

The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."

"We are at war with al Qaeda," he said. "We are at war with its violent extremist allies who seek to carry on al Qaeda's murderous agenda."

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in March that the administration was not using the term "war on terror" but no specific directive had come from the White House itself. Mr. Obama himself used the term "war on terror" on Jan. 23, his fourth day as president, but has not used it since.

Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.

The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will do that.

He was specific about ways in which Mr. Obama believes words influence the way America prosecutes the fight against terrorism.

Mr. Brennan said that to say the U.S. is fighting "jihadists" is wrongheaded because it is using "a legitimate term, 'jihad,' meaning to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" which "risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve."

"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.

As for the "war on terrorism," Mr. Brennan said the administration is not going to say that "because 'terrorism' is but a tactic — a means to an end, which in al Qaedas case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate."

"You can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself," Mr. Brennan said.

He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups — which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving threat" — should not be called "a global war."

While Mr. Brennan acknowledged that al Qaeda and its affiliates are active in countries throughout the Middle East and Africa, he also said that "portraying this as a 'global' war risks reinforcing 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."

The president's adviser said that in discussing counter terror operations, Mr. Obama "has encouraged us to be even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative" than they have been proposing.

But Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."
 
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its a duck no matter how p.c you get when calling it other than a duck.
 
If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, its a duck no matter how p.c you get when calling it other than a duck.

Ya, but the article is still worth the read. It's basically about the Obama admin reducing blowback. These are good measures. I would take a lot more.. like pulling the troops out.
 
Somebody tell the MIAC, the DHS and the SPLC. I think they missed the memo.
 
so war is over, troops come home. celebration in the streets, ticker tape parades, peace & prosperity for all.

and turn over the massive Iraqi embassy to the locals. and reduce defense spending to pre-war levels. right?

oh, wait, we just changed the words from war on terror to war on al-qaeda. nevermind.
 
How about the war on domestic terrorists? Is that over also? Can we have the freedoms we lost now Mr President or are we considered "in bed with al Qaeda"? Nevermind...I already know the answer to that question.
 
good thing its not a POLICE action...i hear those lat a LOOOOOONG tyme
 
Ah, here we have it sensitive imperialism. The war is stil being waged, but we are not going to call it that because we want to be Sensitive. And we`ll pretend the drones drop candy and flowers while we are at it too. I`ll call it Barbie Imperialism.
 
No More War on Terror, White House Claims


R. Cort Kirkwood | The New American
07 August 2009


The Obama administration has declared an end to the “war on terror,” which undoubtedly scares the neocons as much it warms the hearts of those opposed to the war from the beginning. But opponents of the war shouldn’t light up the peace pipes just yet. The declaration doesn't mean much of anything.

The announcement, the Washington Times reported, came in a speech by the head of the White House homeland security office, John Brennan, at Georgetown University’s Center for Strategic And International Studies. In March, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the term “war on terror” was no longer in use, the newspaper observed, but the official “end” of the war had not been decided.

American interventions across the globe will likely continue. Instead, the new policy is merely a semantic shift, which became obvious with the simultaneous announcement that Obama would no longer use certain terms to describe this country’s enemies.

“The President does not describe this as a ‘war on terrorism,’” Brennan said. A country, he said, cannot make war on a tactic as opposed to making war on another country. As well, the Obama administration will no longer use the term “global war,” or such terms as “jihadist” to describe Islamic terrorists. Jihad is “a legitimate term” that means “to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal.” That, he said, “risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve.” And “worse,” he said, “it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself.”

All this raises several questions, not least of which is what our troops are now doing in Afghanistan and Iraq, and whether this portends some end to the war. Of the latter, the answer is obvious. We still are in Iraq and Afghanistan. We still are at war. The question is why Obama changed these terms.

While Brennan is correct that a country cannot make war on a tactic, not using the term “jihadist” because it contaminates a “legitimate” term is rather a stretch. Muslims know exactly what jihad is, and many of them believe terrorists are waging justifiable jihad against the United States. In other words, “these murderers” do have a “religious legitimacy" in the Islamic world, and if Messrs. Obama and Brennan don’t think so, they can read the polling results of what Muslims around the world thought about the 9/11 attacks and subway bombings in Britain in 2007. And they can check into YouTube and watch the video of jihadists, or whatever he wants to call them, rioting in Europe's major cities.

Obama is trying to placate Muslims because his affinity for this religion goes way beyond Bush’s boilerplate ecumenism. He was raised for a time in a Muslim society, and his own writings and statements make it clear exactly where his sympathies lie. It isn’t with Christendom, which isn’t to say Obama doesn’t believe he is some sort of Christian.

That does not bode well for the future.


SOURCE:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/1608
 
How about lazy people in general? Think they are equally hated.

Hey take it easy. No wrong in being lazy as long as you dont demand benefits paid by other people for it. Lord knows Im lazy for one. Lazy and proud!
 
Mr. Brennan's speech was aimed at outlining ways in which the Obama administration intends to undermine the "upstream" factors that create an environment in which terrorists are bred.

The president's adviser talked about increasing aid to foreign governments for building up their militaries and social and democratic institutions, but provided few details about how the White House will do that.

Hay! - how about stopping bombing, killing and maiming civilians! - what a concept! I mean if another country was doing what we are there to us, I bet Americans would be doing what they are to repel us.

How about LEAVING! - What's driving the civilian population to support and join them is our presence.

He also said that to call the fight against al Qaeda and other terrorist groups — which he said remains "a dynamic and evolving threat" — should not be called "a global war."

While Mr. Brennan acknowledged that al Qaeda and its affiliates are active in countries throughout the Middle East and Africa, he also said that "portraying this as a 'global' war risks reinforcing 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."

hmmm, might want to look at pages 4-6 and 13 of this...

http://88.80.16.63/leak/us-sof-miller-2009.pdf


The president's adviser said that in discussing counter terror operations, Mr. Obama "has encouraged us to be even more aggressive, even more proactive, and even more innovative" than they have been proposing.
picard-facepalm.jpg



But Mr. Brennan lamented "inflammatory rhetoric, hyperbole, and intellectual narrowness" surrounding the national security debate and said Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."

umm, right....

-t
 
Back
Top