Hillary Reiterates End of 'War on Terror' Phrase While Taliban Pledges White House Attack

Hillary Clinton, yesterday:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the Obama administration has stopped using "war on terror," breaking with the Bush administration's terminology in describing the conflict with al Qaeda and militant Islam.

"The administration has stopped using the phrase, and I think that speaks for itself," Mrs. Clinton told reporters as she traveled here for a United Nations-led conference on Afghanistan.

Mrs. Clinton made her remarks in response to reporters' questions. Asked whether there was a specific policy decision on the terminology, she said: "I haven't gotten any directive about using it or not using it. It's just not being used."

Elsewhere in the world, today:

The commander of the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility Tuesday for a deadly assault on a Pakistani police academy and said the group was planning a terrorist attack on the White House that would "amaze" the world.

"Soon we will launch an attack in Washington that will amaze everyone in the world," Mehsud told The Associated Press by phone. He provided no details.

Mehsud identified the White House as one of the targets in an interview with local Dewa Radio, a copy of which was obtained by the AP.

Baitullah Mehsud might just be offering the standard-issue empty threats and big talk. But if there is a terror attack in Washington in the not-too-distant future, the recent de-emphasis of the "war on terror" phrase is going to look silly. We may have ended our "war on terror," but nobody sent that memo to the terrorists.

Views: 23

Comment

You need to be a member of ConsimWorld to add comments!

Join ConsimWorld

Comment by Tony on April 3, 2009 at 12:50am
"Counter-Terrorism Professional" aren't fighting this war, troops on the ground are.
CT pro's aren't patrolling streets and mountain passes.

Oh by the way, it is One War, not 2 wars as the double-speakers would like for us to believe.
One war, the GWOT, with 2 theaters (or whatever the technical term would be), Iraq being the most important theater because it threatens Iran, who are the true objective of this entire war. (not some dip-sh*t's hiding in the mountains)
The entire 2 war slogan is a farce used to deceive the public to think of Iraq as "Mr Bush's War" and Afghanistan as the "good war".

Anyway, I'm done dealing with the double-speakers and just call them for what they really are, Liars, that denigrate the work of troops in one theater for purely political purposes.
No apologies.
Comment by Smitty on April 2, 2009 at 10:20pm
Petraeus Wants 10,000 More Troops for Afghanistan; Obama Balks

What does Petraeus know about defeating an insurgency, anyway.

Petraeus acknowledged that the ratio of coalition and Afghan security forces to the population is projected through 2011 to be significantly lower than the 20 troops per 1,000 people prescribed by the Army counterinsurgency manual he helped write.
“If you assume there is an insurgency throughout the country . . . you need more forces,” Petraeus, who oversees the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as head of U.S. Central Command, said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. He said the Pentagon has not yet forwarded the troop request to the White House.


Obama disagrees and claims he's "properly resourced" the war.

Petraeus literally wrote the book on CI operations. And the book worked. And yet here is Obama, who campaigned heavily on the promise to win the war that needed to be won in Afghanistan, and rapped Bush for "taking his eyes off the ball," undermanning the war effort.

Here's his rationale:

Asked how he would handle requests from commanders for more troops, he said: “What I will not do is to simply assume that more troops always result in an improved situation. . . . There may be a point of diminishing returns.”
Odd. That was the thinking under Bush -- thinking that, while understandable, turned out to be wrong. Thinking that Candidate Obama castigated. Thinking that Candidate Obama promised to reverse.

But I suppose all those promises weren't really Obama's -- merely the Magic Teleprompter's -- so he feels no strong reason to deliver on them.
Comment by Smitty on April 2, 2009 at 10:07pm
I prefer "killing those who hate us and the western way of life...." :)
Comment by Rex Brynen on April 2, 2009 at 9:08pm
Smitty—McKiernan has been lobbying for an additional 30,000 troops, and has been since before Obama was elected. Obama has now already authorized 21,000 of those.

As far as I'm aware, however, no one at the Pentagon envisaged that all 30,000 would be deployed in 2009—on the contrary, they've explicitly told the White House that since the the remainder wouldn't arrive until 2010, there is no need for a decision on the final 9,000+ until this fall.

Bill—I think it is less political correctness, more effective information operations. I actually don't know anyone who works in the CT business who thought that the "GWoT" was a good way of framing the effort.
Comment by Bill on April 2, 2009 at 8:06pm
Political correctness / newspeak.
Comment by Smitty on April 2, 2009 at 7:18pm
Actually Obama seems to not be ready to devote the resources General P has asked for and that he pledged to devote in his caampaign.
Comment by Rex Brynen on April 2, 2009 at 7:16pm
I think, perhaps, that you're missing the point—the terminology of "the global war on terror" (and, to a lesser extent, "the Long War") is being dropped because it was much derided by counter-terrorism professionals as imprecise ("How do you declare war on a tactic?"). It was also associated internationally with an unpopular Bush Administration, and hence sometimes made it more difficult to secure cooperation from others. Framing an effective US message is, after all, as important as the kinetic dimension in current global counter-terrorism efforts.

Changing the language used to frame CT efforts shouldn't be confused with abandoning the fight. Indeed, the recent Obama Administration AfPak review suggests that the USG will actually be *increasing* the resources devoted to the theatre discussed in the article.
Comment by Tony on March 31, 2009 at 10:04pm
ehh...fear mongers
Comment by Jim Werbaneth on March 31, 2009 at 9:57pm
Maybe if we give them all a cookie and adopt a fashionable anti-semitism they'll kill us last.
Comment by Tony on March 31, 2009 at 9:42pm
"Baitullah Mehsud might just be offering the standard-issue empty threats and big talk."
The same empty threats Bin Laden made in '98?
heads in the sand is an excellent phrase, been saying that since Sep 12th.

Help Center

Latest Activity

Joseph replied to Chuang Shyue Chou's discussion What are you reading?
"Yes, Rebus is his main character. I've seen a Rebus book with the "Complaints…"
yesterday
Chuang Shyue Chou replied to Chuang Shyue Chou's discussion What are you reading?
"I have yet to try the Rebus ones. The Rebus ones, I understand, is his primary vehicle. I know that…"
Thursday
Chuang Shyue Chou commented on Jim Werbaneth's blog post Free Time to Work on Line of Departure Issue 83
"Yikes!"
Thursday
Roger Bridges is now a member of ConsimWorld
Wednesday
Joseph replied to Chuang Shyue Chou's discussion What are you reading?
"I've read Rankin's John Rebus detective novels only till now. The "Witch Hunt"…"
Wednesday
Jim Werbaneth commented on Jim Werbaneth's blog post Free Time to Work on Line of Departure Issue 83
"And I didn't find Jesus in prison!"
Wednesday
Chuang Shyue Chou commented on Jim Werbaneth's blog post Free Time to Work on Line of Departure Issue 83
"Do remember to add to your profile that you are and were a Facebook convict! You have done time!…"
Wednesday
Jim Werbaneth updated their profile
Wednesday

Events

Members

CSW Related Links

Please be sure to check-out these CSW services.

© 2019   Created by John Kranz.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service