Earlier this month, JABBS noted that President Bush continued to use the word "war" to describe our nation's fight against terrorism, even as others in the administration began using the euphemism "global struggle against violent extremism" — or the Orwellian (or possibly Christian fundamentalist) acronym Global SAVE.
JABBS wondered why this had happened, hoping maybe the president was finally acknowledging the difference between the Iraq War (primarily against insurgents and others who believe they are defending Iraq against a Western invader) and the broader fight against Al Qaeda (who struck the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, and have struck a long list of allies since, most recently in London and Egypt).
But the mainstream media seemed not to notice the administration battle over monikers, so JABBS waited for additional information. That information came via an Aug. 11 press conference, and Bush's weekly radio address on Aug. 13.
***
Does the President like the word "war" better? Yes, according to National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Speaking from the "Western White House" in Crawford, Texas, Hadley had this confusing back-and-forth with reporters:
Q Steve, has the President made clear to (Defense Secretary Donald) Rumsfeld and (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard B.) Myers that he prefers they not use euphemisms for the word "war"? He's not shy about saying the U.S. is a nation at war.
HADLEY: I think you saw the President, today, standing up in front of his national security team, making very clear it's a war on terrorism, how he sees it. You know, everybody has heard it and I think there's actually no disagreement that there's a war on terrorism. It is a terribly important struggle for the United States. And there is obviously — and to be successful, we have to integrate all elements of national power. And part of that is, obviously, military action against terrorists; and part of it is also, of course, progress in the war of ideas, in spreading democracy and freedom.
Article comments
1 - Dave Nalle
Got to admire Bush for sticking to his guns on this. He's right to call it a war, and trying to change it to some weasely alternative was a bad idea from the get go.
>>-- A 2004 analysis of detainees in Iraq, reported by USA Today, suggested foreign fighters accounted for only 2% of the insurgency. More recently, the administration has said those numbers are growing, although it hasn't proven that "foreign fighters" can be equated to "Al Qaeda."<<
That analysis is famously flawed. First off, it only counts captured insurgents and doesn't count those killed. By all accounts the terrorists send the foreign fighters out to be killed first and overwhelmingly use them as suicide bombers. It also doesn't take into consideration that many of the fighters are Iraqis who are in essence working for a foreign power, be it Al Quaeda or Iran or a cabal of moslem extremist clerics. While they may be form Iraq, their money, training and equipment comes from outside so they are invader surrogates or fifth columnists as well.
But hey, don't let reality stand in the way of the Bush bashing.
Dave
2 - Shark
"...fighting terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them here at home."
This is the biggest load of shit the Bush team has dumped on America so far.
(one more attack on American soil [a sure thing] will negate the alleged logic of this truckload of Right-Wing Guano-Speak)
======
re. the nationalities of "terrorsts" or "insurgents" in Iraq --
It only matters in the realm of Bush's NewSpeak.
And Dave -- yer splitting hairs here.
(...and my fellow Americans... ) ...Don't get lost in the circled streets of Terminology Hell. They're only trying to distract you while they pick yer pockets.
=======
re. "war on terror" vs "global struggle against violent extremism"
They use "war" when they want money, support, or 'patriotic' passion from somnambulent american meatheaded public -- and they use "global struggle..." when polls say the majority of Americans wake up and check the boz marked:
"FUCKING SICK OF HEARING ABOUT IRAQ"
3 - Shark
boz = "box"
] : /
4 - David R. Mark
Dave, I didn't link to it, but an NBC News analysis (conducted by Lisa Myers, and available on the MSNBC website), from June of this year found that 55% of the foreign fighters killed were Saudi. But again, unless you equate 'Saudi' with 'Al Qaeda' -- and I don't think the administration does, at least not publicly -- then that's where the trail ends. It's just conjecture that these foreign fighters are allied with Al Qaeda or splinter groups. It may seem reasonable, but it's just an unproven theory.
5 - Nancy
The Smirking Weasel continues to call it 'war' less because it is a war than because he likes being known as a 'war president'. Otherwise he could give a shit.
6 - Dave Nalle
Saudi Arabia is one of the countries which has the kinds of social problems that produces people willing to die for Islam, so it's not surprising that Saudis are in Iraq, especially given the geographical proximity. It doesn't rally matter where the foreign terrorists come from, what matters is that they are there. What may matter even more is the financial and material backing that the terrorists are getting from Iraq and Iran.
Dave
7 - David R. Mark
You don't think it matters that the foreign fighters are predominantly Saudi?
C'mon, Dave.
8 - Dave Nalle
Sure it matters, David. Are you endorsing an invasion of Saudi Arabia? If not, then tell me what we're going to do about the fact that so many of them are Saudis.
You bring this fact up as if it's meaningful, but you don't have a solution to the Saudi problem that anyone is going to accept. Fine, you've pointed out a problem that most of us are already aware of. That doesn't make it go away or even make it any easier to deal with.
Dave
9 - David R. Mark
I can assure you -- and you could ask one of my conservative editors to verify this -- that my thoughts in fighting terrorism post-9/11 have not changed since 2001:
1) Go into Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban and as much of Al Qaeda as possible.
2) Use intelligence gathered from captured Al Qaeda to have surgical strikes into Pakistan (for harboring terrorists), Saudi Arabia (for creating terrorists) and even Iran (for funding terrorists) in order to wipe out remaining Al Qaeda. Work with the host countries if possible, but if the host countries say no, and the UN is not willing to back us up, go in those countries alone. Demand, via the UN, that the various countries end their hate-mongering in the schools, and their heinous acts against women and dissidents. Build international support for destroying Al Qaeda and cutting off all support lines to Al Qaeda. Freeze all bank accounts tied to terrorism.
3) Improve mass transit, port, airline, airport, rail, and chemical and nuclear plant security.
4) Improve communications between our intelligence to find and root out terror cells in the U.S.
5) Improve border patrol by increasing people hours and adding high-tech surveillance to prevent terrorists from entering our country illegally.
6) Prosecute here, or deport to friendly nations, those found guilty of being linked to Al Qaeda or splinter groups.
...
Some of the above was done by the Bush Administration, and I supported those efforts.
I would not have gone into Iraq. I felt the situation was contained with the no-fly zones and the inspectors on the ground. As I told my editor at the time, I would have considered using force against Saddam once I had obliterated Al Qaeda.
10 - gonzo marx
as for #9
heh..just about verbatim what i've been saying around here
notice that my fingers never leave my hands
Excelsior!
11 - Dave Nalle
>>1) Go into Afghanistan and wipe out the Taliban and as much of Al Qaeda as possible. <<
So that includes invading Iran and basically taking over Pakistan to root out Al Qaeda in those two countries? Because without that you wouldn't be getting much more than a token element of Al Qaeda.
>>2) Use intelligence gathered from captured Al Qaeda to have surgical strikes into Pakistan (for harboring terrorists), Saudi Arabia (for creating terrorists) and even Iran (for funding terrorists) in order to wipe out remaining Al Qaeda. Work with the host countries if possible, but if the host countries say no, and the UN is not willing to back us up, go in those countries alone. Demand, via the UN, that the various countries end their hate-mongering in the schools, and their heinous acts against women and dissidents. Build international support for destroying Al Qaeda and cutting off all support lines to Al Qaeda. Freeze all bank accounts tied to terrorism. <<
Ok, so rather than just a war with Iraq you're opting for a war with the entire middle east from Kashmir to Egypt. Brilliant.
>>I would not have gone into Iraq. I felt the situation was contained with the no-fly zones and the inspectors on the ground. As I told my editor at the time, I would have considered using force against Saddam once I had obliterated Al Qaeda.<<
I wouldn't have gone into Iraq either, but going into Iraq is certainly better than the massive, essentially world-wide conflict your proposals would kick off. I wonder if you'd realize what a bad idea it all was when the Indonesian, Philippino and Kashmiri forces showed up to join the Jihad and our forces on the ground were outnumbered a thousand to one.
Dave
12 - David R. Mark
I wasn't proposing full-scale war.
And it's a moot point, anyway, because Bush has taken us down another path.
My point is that we should have gone after Al Qaeda, and only Al Qaeda, on foreign soil. And we should have real homeland security, rather than the corporate welfare/wasteful spending/half-assed effort that we have now.