Tuesday, July 26, 2005

Surrender in the GWOT?

This is going to make a lot of froth-mouths very unhappy:

"New Name for 'War on Terror' Reflects Wider U.S. Campaign"

Choice excerpt:

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

What's next, therapy and understanding for terrorists? What say you, Hugh, Powerline, et al? Eagerly awaiting response.

Also, guys, 'GSAVE' -- sounds like the name of your bonus card at Rite Aid.

UPDATE: Welcome, Eschatonians. Apparently, the PR office at the Defense Department didn't get the new memo. Get the headline in their release on Myers appearance at the press club: "U.S. Must Maintain Will in Terror War, Myers Says."

Permalink posted by Jonathan : 8:08 AM

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?