"War on terror" was always a deeply flawed term, but the Obama Administration is not discarding it in favor of any more realistic or accurate alternative. "White House: 'War on terrorism' is over: 'Jihadists' and 'global war' no longer acceptable terms," by Jon Ward and Eli Lake in the Washington Times, August 6 (thanks to all who sent this in):
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."
And of course that agenda is advanced via terrorism, as well as by other means, but never mind.
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."
The unspoken assumption is that the United States has the power or prestige in the Islamic world to confer or deny Islamic legitimacy. This is, however, sheer fantasy.
"Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.
The fact that the jihadists themselves call themselves jihadists -- mujahedin -- seems to matter not at all.
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."
That is certainly true. Terrorism is a tactic and not an opponent. But there is no indication that the Obama Administration has any intention of confronting all the entities that are working in various ways to establish 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."
Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Bosnia/Kosovo, Nigeria, Western Europe, the U.S. Not 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."...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."
Great. But he assumes that America's enemies are similarly practical and non-ideological at his -- and our -- own risk.
RSS Feed
Posting my record of the comments that were made to this article, while we were using IntenseDebate (and IntDeb was starting to screw up royally, so some comments may in fact be things that people meant for different threads) - dda.
ALARMED PIG FARMER said (quoting) - '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." '
These dumbasses in the White House would be funny if they weren't so dangerous. If Jihad is self-purification towards a moral goal, why did God give commandments ruminating on how it was only ok for elderly and infirm men to not go into battle against Infidels? Brennan should crack a book, and you know what book I'm talking about.
*** 4:95 ***
Prez Obama is a punk, but a self-satisfied punk.
ISLAMMACHTFREI said - (quoting) ""Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said."
Islam is at war with us. (Dar al harb). The least we can do is return the favor.
TANSTAAFL said - (quoting) '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."'
I have a bridge I can sell Mr. Brennan in Brooklyn.....
EVIEW - I'm not sure what this story has to do with Juan Cole, who several have commented on above. Cole has been the subject of JW stories before, and has been thoroughly dissected in the accompanying commentary as a Leftist idiot. {Note: during the final weeks of our sojourn at IntenseDebate, comments went haywire - dda}.
The main subject of this story was Obama's abolishing certain words related to the GWOT in favor of supposedly better ones.
The story states that 'Mr. Obama has views that are "nuanced, not simplistic; practical, not ideological."'
Fair enough. Views that are nonsimplistic and nuanced are usually a good thing for adults to posses.
But the real question is whether these nuanced, nonsimplistic views now better span the space of reality sufficiently to capture the real essence of the problem of aggressive Islamism. I do not think they do.
To paraphrase Donald Rumsfeld: The problem isn't what Obama knows about what he knows or thinks he knows, nor what he doesn't know about that he actually does know, nor even what he knows that he doesn't know about. It is rather what he doesn't know about what he doesn't know. (Sorry for this tortured logic. This is one of those pearls Rumsfeld used to emit every now and then that I miss). He is unlikely to admit that such a null space, such a blind spot, exists between his ears, and will therefore not likely voluntarily do anything to identify and fix what is a nonexistent problem.
EPISTEMOLOGY said - 'Obama's view are not simplistic', interesting idea. I'd call his views very naive, to put it mildly.
We are at war with jihadism, Islamic supremacism and even with Islam itself, because to the best of my knowledge al Qaeda's ideology is true Islam. That's what al Zawahiri keeps telling us, and he's the leading ideologist of that movement.
Dear Robert, wake up the president and explain the global situation to him, please.
This is a global war with all these countries involved, and it needs a global strategy. And Europe needs the U.S very badly.
I can't understand Obama, having lived and gone to school in Indonesia, he should know better.
JEWDASPRIEST said - Robert says, "Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Bosnia/Kosovo, Nigeria, Western Europe, the U.S."
...don't forget China...
AGL said - (quoting) "Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Bosnia/Kosovo, Nigeria, Western Europe, the U.S. Not a global war."
Kashmir is legally an Indian state
http://ikashmir.net/historicaldocuments/doc/histo... ,
which Pakistani jihadists have been trying to grab on their way to conquering all of India.
It would be better to list all the countries that have disputed territories "Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, India, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Bosnia/Kosovo, Nigeria, Western Europe, the U.S." instead of mixing disputed territories with a list of countries.
Otherwise it gives the impression that jihadists want of Kashmir as separate from India.
THELEGEND said - oh the war is over lol that's gives me luagh.
leftist,muslims,apologizts.
are the scum of earth and they need to be terminated.
alot of victims are dying because of muslims and uk is becming a shit hole and france and holland and the rest of europe these leftist have a lot of blood in there hands.
GENTILE said - Ever since Admiral Michael Mullen ordered the words "war on terror" stricken from the US armed forces communications in Sept 2007 and Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about this term creating a culture of fear in March 2007[1], it's a done deal as far as the current administration following the wishes and desires of the puppet masters.
Why are we surprised? Anyone digging deeper would have seen that the abandonment already occurred, we're just watching the backwash 2 years later.
Talk to Zbigniew, he seems to know a lot, after all, he did set up Osama bin Laden.
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...
PRAGMATIST said - As usual Obambi's mob get it completely wrong heads in the sand ars*s in the air it no wonder they get buggered.
Its ISLAM not missuderstanders or fanatics just ISLAM plain and simple. I mean they tell us often enough so its not a case of not knowing its a case of not WANTING to know.
HUGH FITZGERALD remarked {a propos the IntDeb meltdown} - The entire system of comments has gone kerflooey, with replies to a several-days-old posting about Juan Cole appearing again and again under other articles. Something must be done to correct this. I cannot be the only one being driven crazy by this.
-DEUSVULT told HUGH - It's happening to everyone Hugh......... not just you.....
GOZAN said - The only terminology that Mr. Brennan said the administration is using is that the U.S. is "at war with al Qaeda."'
And in WWII we were only fighting the 2nd SS Panzer division. No need to say things like "nazi" or "fascism". Of course this is patent insanity, but us unwashed masses is too stoopid to deal with something like the truth, ya know, so them smart fellers in the gov'ment and the tv have to keep us peaceful like, so's we don't run off and turn over cars 'n' stuff. Being patronized is almost worse than having people I've never met wanting to kill me.
P.S. As of this writing the comment system is well and truly hosed, and I have no idea where it will show up. If it is off topic just write it off to "free association". *smiley*
DEUSVULT said - (quoting) '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."'
********************
Thats the "other" Jihad Mr. Brennan.
That definition of Jihad is only about 100 years old, by some of the accounts I have read, I believe Raymond has mentioned this in articles in the past.
Its that *other* definition of Jihad I am worried about Mr. Brennan.
You know, the Jihad thats 1400 years old? the one thats mentioned over and over again in the Koran and the Hadiths?
What you haven't read it? Well that must explain why you don't know then..........
PS-Zbigniew Brzezinski is like an Ostrich with his head in the sand........ He just doesn't get it.
BASEBALLMAVEN said - Somewhat OT, but found this ever so apropos of the shame based culture of Islam (from Elder of Ziyon's wonderful blog):
From the Arab News:
According to a report in Al-Riyadh newspaper on Wednesday an Arab expatriate in Majmaah angrily lopped off a good portion of his male organ after learning that his ex-wife had given birth to a baby girl with her new hubby. The auto-amputation occurred after the woman told him that the problem they had with procreating lied with him, not her. The man was admitted to King Khaled Hospital, where re-attachment surgery was performed.
DSINC said - OT
The comments section requires some IntenseDebate. It's about time something is done about it.
EHCANADIAN said - (quoting) - "Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself," Mr. Brennan said.
Well america may not be at war with Islam but Islam is most definately at war with america.
DUHSWAMI said - Purity jihad again...I haven't seen read, or heard about, any Mahoundians who have reached the goal of inner jihad...but I'm sure they try really hard in between various atrocities.
-DUMBLEDORESARMY said to DUHSWAMI - " I've come to the conclusion that the 'inner jihad' is about psyching yourself up to crush your conscience and empathy so you can do the atrocities (because not all human beings, even wtihin the ummah, are natural-born psychopaths)...just look at the transcripts of those phone calls the controllers made to the jihadis on the ground in Mumbai."
END of my record of comments originally made to this article - dda.