We didn’t start this war, and we sure as hell aren’t going to stop it

March 9, 2006

I found the argument between those who prefer the phrase “global war on terror” vs. those who like “global struggle against violent extremists” as relatively interesting, at least as far as intra-administration semantics debates go. But it’s worth remembering that some top administration officials have a new label for the ongoing conflict, and it’s far more discouraging than the previous two.

The United States is engaged in what could be a generational conflict akin to the Cold War, the kind of struggle that might last decades as allies work to root out terrorists across the globe and battle extremists who want to rule the world, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said yesterday.

Rumsfeld, who laid out broad strategies for what the military and the Bush administration are now calling the “long war,” likened al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin while urging Americans not to give in on the battle of wills that could stretch for years.

In fact, you’ll probably have to get used to this new rebranding effort. The State Department issued a report last month that explains: “The Bush administration and the Defense Department increasingly are using the term ‘the long war’ to describe the long-term goals of the War on Terror.”

Indeed, Rumsfeld’s speech was titled “The Long War.” Stephen Colbert had a very funny segment — in a depressing kind of way — about this new label earlier this week. Thanking the administration for its breakthrough in “conflict name technology,” Colbert explained that future generations “may never have to suffer through peace again.”

The political implications of the new name could be fairly broad. The administration and its allies argue, for example, that certain powers have to be extended to the federal government at this crucial time because, of course, we’re engaged in a war against terrorists around the world. Just as soon as the conflict is over, the president won’t have to ignore pesky laws like FISA and the 4th Amendment anymore. But in the meantime, we should all be patient. And if you’re not, you’re obviously soft on terror.

Which makes the new name for the undefined, open ended conflict all the more distressing. How long will the executive branch need to embrace a bold power grab? It’s “the long war,” so prepared for this to last a “long” time.

As Colbert put it, the label offers a message of hope to America: “There’s no foreseeable conclusion and we’re not sure who we’re fighting.” I feel better already.

This “long war” will undoubtedly continue up until the moment that a democrat is sworn in as president, whereupon the executive’s carte blanche will be withdrawn.

  • Seems it isn’t possible to just capture or kill Osama bin Laden.

    It’s not like the guy has a whole country protecting him.

    Or maybe he does…

    … Bush’s America!

  • The forever war ( that must never end) for it is the key to those wartime powers nessary to maintain political dominance.

    We can assume that all opposition political communications are being monitored by BushCo.
    The scope and political implications of mining confidential information from domestic survalience is unfathomable to the average person, and perhaps to the party not in power. Democratic candidates should start using string and tin can telephones or share sensitive strategy documents by hand.

  • I am disgusted with the “wartime president” crap. Did Eisenhauer through Reagan need to suspend the Bill of Rights during the Cold War? Or are the “terrorists” more of a threat than nuclear destruction from the Soviet block?
    Is it a lie to grab power (that’s what I think), or are the Bush supporters such cowards that they willingly enable a new King George to protect them?

  • Wow, the Republicans must be really hyper-concerned with how people perceive the war, for them to keep changing the name of it like that, eh?

    I wonder why they are so preoccupied with people’s perceptions like that. They must think that it is really important.

  • Bush is NOT a wartime president, period. A wartime president does not slash taxes, try to cut troop levels, keep funding programs that do nothing to support soldiers in the field, shortchange those same soldiers the equipment they DO need, and continue to force some of this country’s best warfighters out of the service because you don’t agree with their sexual orientation.

  • This terminology is actually pulled from a speech that Newt Gingrich gave before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Subcomittee on Oversight on Oct. 19, 2005. (PDF file: http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/GingrichTestimony101905.pdf)

    “First, we continue to have difficutly in acurately identifying an adequate conceptual framework for this war, and the term “Global War on Terror” reflects this inadequate framework. With an inadequate conceptual framework of this war, we will be unable to determine an effective theory of victory, let alone an effective understanding of the intelligence requirements of that theory.

    Because this war is at its core an ideological war, it is more accurate to think of and identify this war as the “Long War”. ”

    He then goes on to say: ” It is stunningly hard to win a war of ideology where the enemy is religiously motivated to kill us.

    To put this in perspective, if the people of the United States were to suddenly decide that a particular concept was inherently wrong in our education system, it could easily take 20 to 30 years to change that concept, rewrite all the text books, and retrain all the educators. That example is completely one within our culture. If one includes intercultural communication difficulties, the problem grows exponentially harder. If we use every tool at the disposal of the American people in support of a coherent theory of victory, the Long War might only last 50 – 70 years. Yet, it will probably last much longer.”

    He then goes on to identify the enemy as the “Irreconcilable Wing of Islam” and says that “this is a societal war of identity so there are no holds barred, no rules, and no real accomodations (only tactical maneuvers) or potential compromise solutions on their part that would be culturally acceptable to us, or to them.”

    Cheery, huh?

  • This is not a “long war”.

    The “war” (properly phrased “conquest” or “crusade”) ended 30 Apr 2003 with the fall of Baghdad and “Mission Accomplished”.

    The rest (even the unprovoked “war” for that matter) was/is a political stunt designed to make the Regal Moron look like a “war president” rather than the falling-off-bicycles-and-couches drunken idiot he is, and to enable his party to deflect all criticism of their incompetence and greed in so many areas, including security and fiscal responsibility, because “we’re at war”. Bull Shit!

  • Thanks, Gridlock,
    ‘Only” 50 to 70 years? And what about the “Irreconcilable Wing of Evangelical Christianity”?

  • Sooner or later, someone is going to tell the American people the truth about terrorism and the war on terror. I was hoping the Democrats would, but they’re too spineless and cowardly to
    call the administration’s bluff, and so they play along with it.

    In terms of casualties (deaths, injuries) and property damage,
    terrorism has always been, and still is, a relatively minor problem, both globally and nationally, although there are obvious hot spots like Israel, Palestine and now Iraq (thanks to us) where it’s very serious. Terrorism ranks way down on the list of the dozens and dozens of scourges that can afflict our planet. The proof is right in the State Department’s own reports, that it began around 1980, which can be found here:

    http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/pgtrpt/

    Unfortunately, the statistical portion of these reports has been
    discontinued by the administration, because, of course, terrorism has been on the increase since Bush declared war
    on it.

    Simply stated, we’ve been had by the Bush adminisration.
    Terrorism is indeed a problem, and needs to be addressed,
    but it is by no means the bogeyman, or anything close, that
    Bush would have us believe.

    The “long war” is an absolute fraud. I just hope someone has
    the guts to expose it before we’re dragged much further along.

  • I’m reading through this document right now, and admittedly I haven’t gotten far into it, but I think it is recommended reading for everyone on this blog.

    Newt admits that the Long War will be 90% intellectual, communications, political, economic, diplomacy and intelligence focused. “It is at most 10% military.” Let’s hope the admin picks up on this distinction.

    So far, it seems to align with my beliefs of how this”war” should have been run from the moment right after 9/11. Bombing terrorist camps in Afghanistan? Yes. Attacking Saddam…questionable at best, and in my mind, unneccessary.

    I can’t wait to read the appendix detailing out the “Grey World”.

  • It would be great if we could get away from false names like “Global War on Terror” and “Long War” and name this war a little more accurately.

    Newt’s getting close, but he is a little confused. “Irreconcilable Wing of Islam” is a bit inaccurate, because it seems to incorrectly combine Shia extremism such as that of the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Sunni extremism of Osama bin Laden. The fact is, if we could just get out of the way, these two movements would be killing each other right now. In fact, both in Pakistan and Iraq, they are essentially doing this on a low level. It’s just being hidden behind all the other violence going on.

    One problem we have is we are not allied to any Shia dominated country except Iraq (not Syria or Iran). But the fact is, though they may oppose the United States and demogoge against us, both Syria and Iran have been happy to help in the war against Al Qaida because they at least recognize a mutual enemy in this Sunni extremist movement.

    All our so called Arab and Muslim allies are Sunni (Saudi Arabia, for instance). This is also the majority of the muslim world. But the people we are at war with are also Sunni. They are extremists, they want to overthrow all the governments we ally with, but they are also Sunni. And most of them are pretty extreme in their religious positions too (especially Saudi Arabia).

    If this administration was honest with the American People about who the enemy was, who supported (about half of the house of Saud) and what they really want (power in their own countries) and stop with the false arguments (that they “hate our freedoms”) we could fight this war, or more correctly diplomacy it, far better and much faster.

  • This item recalled a line from Book 1 of Paradise Lost:
    “To wage by force or guile eternal war,
    Irreconcilable to our grand Foe,
    Who now triumphs, and in th’ excess of joy
    Sole reigning holds the tyranny of Heaven.”
    So spake th’ apostate Angel.”

    I always *thought* Rummy would make a greate Satan.

  • “There’s no forseeable conclusion, and we’re not sure who we’re fighting.”

    I’ll add to Colbert’s sage statement: We don’t know why we’re fighting, either.

    It’s all straight out of Orwell’s playbook.

    But remind me if it’s Eurasia or Eastasia we’re at war against…

  • Gosh…and i was just finishing a re-read of Joe Haldeman’s “The Forever War” when I saw this thread. Kudos to kali! Oddly enough, with the BushCo dreadnaught steaming along through all the scandals and horrendous approval ratings as though there were nothing amiss, I wouldn’t be overly surprised if they find a way to forestall the midterm elections….

  • Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia, hasn’t it??
    Orwell was only 20 years off.
    I have been really creeped out by the way the we are living out all those Politico-Sci-Fi novels. Fahreinheit 415, 1984 et al…. whats next? Soylent Green?, oh wait, we have Amgen and Monsanto and Genentech, wonderful GMO’s that will make everything better….
    The intentional UNDERfunding of public education has come to fruition.

    • Comments are closed.