PDA

View Full Version : GWOT out; GSAVE in.


Faithless
08-03-2005, 05:23 PM
LIPSTICK ON A PIG: THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION REBRANDS A FAILED WAR (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_randolph_050803_lipstick_on_a_pig.htm)

by Randolph T. Holhut * http://www.opednews.com

DUMMERSTON, Vt. — In a classic example of rebranding, the Bush administration is changing the name of the fight against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

Goodbye, global war on terror (or GWOT, as it was known in government circles).

Hello, "global struggle against violent extremism," (or GSAVE, as it is becoming known).

The language shift may be a recognition that military power alone will not defeat terrorism. Or it may be that the White House is noticing that support for the war in Iraq is waning and that they need a different rhetorical tack to sell their vision to Americans.

I'm betting on the latter, since GWOT has become the Ford Pinto of foreign policy. Rebranding is easier than admitting that you've sold the country a lemon of a war.

The American brand is sinking fast. According to the Financial Times, the United States "is increasingly viewed as a 'culture-free zone' inhabited by arrogant and unfriendly people." This is based on the Anholt-GMI Nation Brands Index, which asked people around the world to rate 25 countries on their cultural, political and investment potential.

Simon Anholt, author of the survey, told the FT this week that the United States may still be recognized as a good place to do business, but "its governance, its cultural heritage and its people are no longer widely respected or admired by the world."

The index ranks the United States 11th, while Australia garnered the top spot. The United States got high marks for popular culture — about the only U.S. export that the rest of the world wants — but was dead last in cultural heritage, defined in the survey as the measure of a country's "wisdom, intelligence and integrity."

Arrogant. Unfriendly. Lacking in wisdom, intelligence and integrity. Sounds like the perfect description of the Bush administration.

The kicker to this survey, according to the FT, was that the Americans surveyed ranked the United States at the top of all six categories. In other words, most Americans don't even know how much we are hated by the rest of the world.

And the source of this hatred is our illegal and immoral invasion and occupation of Iraq.

So how does President Bush address this perception of the United States as a rogue nation? By appointing John Bolton to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Appointing a man who is the antithesis of a diplomat to one of the most important diplomatic posts in the world says everything you need to know about how the Bush administration views the world.

Thankfully, not every member of the administration is a cementhead. Speaking before the National Press Club last week, Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism,' because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

Myers said that "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international community's national power" are needed and that the solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military."

This is blindingly obvious to anyone who knows how the world really works. It comes as news to President Bush, who acts as if he is emperor of the world and has zero regard for ideas contrary to his.

Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 25 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books). He can be reached at Randyholhut@yahoo.com.

hooligan
08-03-2005, 05:27 PM
It's funny that this global war of terror, when the insurgency gained a foothold in Iraq suddenly shifted labels and ideologies. All of a sudden, US military because the occupiers and those who fought against them were an insurgency (those who fear democracy and freedom). Essentially, they were using older labels on a new type of war. Terrorism, is not the fight that people wage when they face an occupier. Those are rebels and nationalistists who view the war as an imperial one.

Faithless
08-03-2005, 05:30 PM
Good points.

BTW: Bush says he didn't want the GSAVE term.

Was he thinking of GSPoil instead? (Global Smash and Pillage for Oil.) :rolleyes: (It's a joke. It's not in this article. :frown: I'm sorry. I was trying to make a funny. Don't hurt me.)

Former CIA man says Bush not happy over new terror language (http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Former_CIA_man_says_Bush_not_happy_over_new_terror _la_0802.html)

Bush critic Larry Johnson, who served as a Deputy Director in the U.S. State Department’s Office of Counter Terrorism from 1989 to 1993, tells RAW STORY the intelligence community is 'abuzz' after President Bush purportedly said he was not happy about changing the Administration's terminology on terror.

Johnson has analyzed terrorist incidents for Jim Lehrer, National Public Radio, Nightline, NBC's Today Show, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News and the BBC.

Johnson emailed this to RAW STORY Tuesday afternoon; it has been excerpted.

Bush reportedly said he was not in favor of the new term, Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). In fact, he said, "no one checked with me". That comment brought an uncomfortable silence to the assembled group of pooh bahs. The President insisted it was still a war as far as he is concerned.

The battle over language and the confusion within the National Security Council is an unfortunate reminder of the chaos that is afflicting the Bush Administration's effort to deal with terrorism. Unfortunately, every agency and department is doing its own thing without strong, clear direction or control from the White House. Makes longtime bureaucrats long for the days of Richard Clarke, when at least there was someone in charge.

While the Bush Administration has trumpeted that it is waging a war on terrorism rather than treating it as a law enforcement problem, the reality is that the terrorists do not present a target that can be readily attacked with military assets. In fact, the major captures of terrorist targets, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Hambali, have been carried out through intelligence operations or through police round ups.

Last fall I was told by friends in the counter terror community that the NSC was pushing to change the Global War on Terrorism into the War on Extremism (WOE). The original intent was to eliminate GWOT and replace it with WOE. Apparently someone at the White House realized that WOE would provide endless grist for comedy writers and decided instead to go with GSAVE.

The sad reality is that there is still no one in charge of directing a coordinated U.S. Government policy to combat terrorism. General Wayne Downing, who was put in charge in October of 2001, tried to do so but was slapped down by Don Rumsfeld. Downing resigned in frustration after spending less than a year on the job. Since then we have seen a virtual game of musical chairs, as different folks move in and out of the NSC slot responsible for coordinating terrorism policy.

At the end of the day this episode is a reminder of why Bin Laden is still at large. We cannot even agree on what to call the fight against Islamic radicals (FAIR is already taken as an acronym). We had WOT, thought about WOE, moved to GSAVE and may go back to WOT. Someone needs to find out WHAT is happening.

younggiftedandblack
08-03-2005, 09:53 PM
It's funny that this global war of terror, when the insurgency gained a foothold in Iraq suddenly shifted labels and ideologies. All of a sudden, US military because the occupiers and those who fought against them were an insurgency (those who fear democracy and freedom). Essentially, they were using older labels on a new type of war. Terrorism, is not the fight that people wage when they face an occupier. Those are rebels and nationalistists who view the war as an imperial one.
I would be inclined to agree if it wasn't for the fact they most of the people getting killed are Iraqis (sp?). If these are Freedom Fighters then why kill the populace you're supposedly freeing?

hooligan
08-03-2005, 09:56 PM
I would be inclined to agree if it wasn't for the fact they most of the people getting killed are Iraqis (sp?). If these are Freedom Fighters then why kill the populace you're supposedly freeing?

Same reason people hang traitors to the American Revolution, I suppose.

bluemonq
08-04-2005, 04:42 PM
a common misconseption about the american revolution was that a whole lot of pissed of colonists banded to fight the british. a lot of people had enough things to worry about.

you know, this entire "global war on terrorism" is stupid anyway, in terms of names. it makes about as much sense declaring war on terrorism as declaring war on the nazi blitzkrieg. blitzkrieg is a strategy/tactic. terrorism is a strategy/tactic. you're supposed to fight the nazis and the muslim extremsists (ie, wahabists)

hooligan
08-04-2005, 04:48 PM
a common misconseption about the american revolution was that a whole lot of pissed of colonists banded to fight the british. a lot of people had enough things to worry about.

you know, this entire "global war on terrorism" is stupid anyway, in terms of names. it makes about as much sense declaring war on terrorism as declaring war on the nazi blitzkrieg. blitzkrieg is a strategy/tactic. terrorism is a strategy/tactic. you're supposed to fight the nazis and the muslim extremsists (ie, wahabists)

It was actually a small group of minorities who pushed the war.

Arex
08-04-2005, 04:51 PM
Bush reportedly said he was not in favor of the new term, Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism (GSAVE). In fact, he said, "no one checked with me". That comment brought an uncomfortable silence to the assembled group of pooh bahs. The President insisted it was still a war as far as he is concerned.It's obvious why Bush was upset with the change in terminology. The new acronym simply has too many syllables.

RX