No one can be that surprised about this new development from the Democrats:
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.”
“There was no political intent in doing this,” said a Democratic aide who asked not to be identified. “We were just trying to avoid catch phrases.”
I just love that highlighted part, no political intent….sure thing.
Just like Jimmy Carter renaming illegal immigrants to undocumented….no politics, just didn’t like that name you see?
I mean if you don’t wan’t to call this war what it is, a war on terrorism….then we have finally come full circle. No longer is it a war, it’s separate and distinct conflicts. Just because there are fanatical Islamists fighting us in Somalia (yes, I know we’re not in Somalia….example) doesn’t mean the same fanatical Islamists fighting us in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or any other friggin country are connected. Not like they are terrorists or something.
The first picture that came to my mind when I read this is of a roomful of ungrateful children plugging their ears while saying "la la la I can’t hear you"…
But then I came to realize their real intent. The term hurts the Democrats chances politically. If they can minimize the war but splicing it up into many different conflicts then it’s really not that bad you see?
While the term is vague, it does depict what kind of struggle we are in. We no longer treat all these attacks and terror groups as a law enforcement issue but as a war. If you want to change it then change it to WWIII….because that is what it is.
UPDATE
Scott Malensek adds:
This isn’t the first time Democrats have dodged and then dropped the "war" word
Still, what would you expect from a party leader who not only doesn’t know what to do about the war — she doesn’t even know what to call it?
“This isn’t a war to win,” Pelosi told Fox News’s Brit Hume last week. “It’s a situation to be solved.”
Put that statement together with her comments during the Murtha controversy, and it’s fair to conclude that Pelosi believes the way to solve the situation is to redeploy from the situation.
Other’s Blogging:
