War With No Name

The House being run by "She Who Must Be Obeyed" trying to shut down the "War With No Name".... With the famous herds of cats citing Rumpole saying "I Say What I Think And Do As I'm Told" on the Sunday chat shows.... It seems as if we have American Foreign Policy being scripted by the Brits. They are entertaining and imaginative in their use of language and plot devices... The WSJ Opinion Journal offers the following citations and opinion (I have added some emphasis and comments):

'The War That Must Not Be Named'
A story in the Military Times gives a window into the strategic thinking--or lack thereof--of the Democrats who now control the House:

The House Armed Services Committee is banishing the global war on terror from the 2008 defense budget.

This is not because the war has been won, lost or even called off, but because the committee's Democratic leadership doesn't like the phrase.

A memo for the committee staff, circulated March 27, says the 2008 bill and its accompanying explanatory report that will set defense policy should be specific about military operations and "avoid using colloquialisms."

The "global war on terror," a phrase first used by President Bush shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the U.S., should not be used, according to the memo. Also banned is the phrase the "long war," which military officials began using last year as a way of acknowledging that military operations against terrorist states and organizations would not be wrapped up in a few years.

Committee staff members are told in the memo to use specific references to specific operations instead of the Bush administration's catch phrases. The memo, written by Staff Director Erin Conaton, provides examples of acceptable phrases, such as "the war in Iraq," the "war in Afghanistan, "operations in the Horn of Africa" or "ongoing military operations throughout the world."

A Republican aide quips, "If you are a reader of the Harry Potter books, you might describe this as the war that must not be named." But underlying this semantic argument is a serious question--one that shows why the Democratic Party cannot be trusted with national security.

There are valid reasons to quibble with the phrase "global war on terror"--primarily the last word, which focuses on the enemy's tactical approach rather than on its identity, ideology and strategic goals. (A hodge-podge of outlaws with no single nationality, no clear goals, no strategic plan, offering only random violence against soft easy civilian targets; Looks like the best term is "terrorist" . -AJ)

What the Democrats object to, however, is the idea that it is a "global war." In particular, they are trying to sell the fantasy that Iraq is a discrete problem with no relation to any broader conflict--so that surrendering in Iraq would have no deleterious consequences for U.S. national security.

It would be nice for Americans (albeit brutal for Iraqis) if the U.S. could simply cut its losses and abandon Iraq. But it seems to us there is far more wisdom in the holistic approach of the "global war." America has failed to engage its enemies, or tactically retreated when the going got tough, repeatedly since Vietnam: Iran in 1979, Lebanon in 1983, Iraq in 1991, Somalia in 1993. ( When we Surrender And Run Away (SARA) this time will anyone be surprised? What about the next attack? Who will get the blame for that one? Will we bother with a response? When will we no longer react or respond? Why bother?-AJ)

There is ample reason to think that these shows of weakness--or, more precisely, of irresoluteness--emboldened America's enemies. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, provided strong--at the time, seemingly irrefutable--evidence that taking the easy way out did not enhance American national security. (That's true. But it's too hard. It breaks into our TV time. We're too busy being bored, hanging out, hooking up, finding a new job. We can't be bothered to remove the threat and avoid a repeat-AJ)

America seems dangerously close to a tipping point: a return to the 9/10 mindset that led to 9/11. It may be that President Bush's steadfastness is the only thing standing in the way, and that his departure from the scene in January 2009 will leave a more timid America.

Or, more optimistically, it may be that the current opposition to the "global war" is less about the war itself than about partisanship and Bush-hatred--and that its apparent gain in strength is really only a reflection of the president's political weakness late in his term.

If this is the case, then President Bush's successor, be he Democrat or Republican, will be likely to take a more realistic view of the world than the House Democrats are now doing. Bush's policies, once untethered to Bush himself, may prove more resilient than many of his detractors now expect.

Re-arranging the furniture, changing the names.... Whenever a public company does this I bail out of the stock... It is a clear signal that the problems are not large, the leadership has no reason to be in the leadership, there are no goals to be accomplished, the rest of their career will be spent justifying their existence by making things look different... The assumption being that looking different solves problems... The competition knows better. They are busy solving problems, finding new customers, inventing new technologies...

Would the Eagles ride a "Horse With No Name" to a War With No Name?

Smooth [Kathryn Jean Lopez] (from NRO Offers the following citations without comment-AJ)

RNC is accusing the Dems of mimicing Rosie in their no global war on terror move:

Last Week, Rosie O'Donnell Attacked Use Of "War On Terror" Phrase:

Actress And Guest Co-Host Marcia Gay Harden Called The Phrase "Propaganda." "But even you worded a 'war on terror,' personally that is propaganda. ... Don't like the wording of it like that." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

Rosie O'Donnell Agreed: "Exactly, Marcia Gay. Thank you. ... It makes people into evil and good." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

• O'Donnell: "I'm saying that in America we're fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations. One of them is this one. And you know what; go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our own country because it's frightening. It's frightening." (ABC's "The View," 3/29/07)

Click Here To Watch Rosie's "View" On The "War On Terror"

If the American News is slanted and biased-Who is buying the ads? Who is paying for the podium that Rosie stands upon? Then; Who is buying the products that she is advertising?

If the global news organizations (American and worldwide) don't trust the Administration or the US Military to provide information; Where do they get the "facts" they provide? Are terrorists (Outlaws) found in alleys and sidewalks, really more trustworthy, honest and forthcoming with facts than those who can be held accountable?

Alice never had anything like this in her tumble through the looking glass... The Red Queen was quite specific about conduct and consequences.