Jan 31 2009
New strategy for the “war on terror”
I personally feel the same way Ron Paul does about the “war on terror.” When you look up the definition for terrorism you’ll find this:
Terrorism - Noun - The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
Terrorism is a tactic. You can’t fight a war against a tactic. Is there really an end to the war on terror? The threat of someone using a tactic never really goes away if you think about it. But I digress…
One of the things I was especially interested in with the new administration was how exactly President Barack Obama planned on handling the war on terror. So far it has started with a name change.
Only once since his inauguration has President Obama used the phrase “war on terror,” speaking to state department officials on January 22nd. This is not to say that the goals for the United States have changed dramatically. Obama is still steadily committed towards eliminating radical groups that wish to do harm to the United States, such as al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Still, the dropping of the name “war on terror” is a smart one for many reasons.
The phrase “war on terror” is, and likely will always be, associated with former President George W. Bush. In the Arab world, that association takes on a different meaning.
“[The “war on terror”] became associated in the minds of many people outside the Unites States and particularly in places where the countries are largely Islamic and Arab, as being anti-Islam and anti-Arab,” said Anthony Cordesman, a national security analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank.
The last thing President Obama wants is for the Muslim world to associate him with his predecessor. He has gone to great lengths already to extend an open hand out to the Muslim culture. He mentioned the religion, along with many others, in his inaugural address - a move which has brought criticism from some. His first televised interview as president was with an Arab network. President Obama has also already sent George Mitchell, head of the new United States envoy to the Middle East, to Israel to help hammer out a long-term cease-fire for the embattled Gaza region.
“One of the contrasts between the two administrations is the care with which Obama uses language. He thinks about the subtle implications,” said Fields, an expert on presidential rhetoric. The Bush administration “didn’t set out deliberately to do things that were offensive but they liked to do things that showed how strong they were, and to use language almost in an aggressive sense.”
That definition of terrorism reminds me of our policies in Latin America and elsewhere.
Thank god he changed the name. What’s it called now?
He’s called it a couple things really. The rhetoric he typically uses refers to the idea of protecting our country from radical groups of extremists around the world. He’s called it an “ongoing struggle,” and the “enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism” recently.
Why don’t we just save ourselves a bunch of trouble and just call it “The Troubles,” like the British did.
You think everybody wants to be our friend. You don’t care that people want to kill us, not because we’ve done anything, but simply because we are Americans.
I’m surprised you still call for stopping al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
If you pussies had been alive in the 1940’s we’d all be speaking German (or Japanese) and if you have your way now all our grandkids will be speaking Arabic.
You should change your description (on the About News Today page) from libertarian to liberal. And see how far that gets you when skinny Mohammed comes looking for you with a bomb taped to his chest.
Whoa whoa whoa buddy. Let’s pump the breaks.
First off, that post was what, 3 months old? I start the article quoting Ron Paul but you say I’m a liberal? That guy is a true conservative, and there aren’t many people who are.
This was not even a “big” post or anything. It was about a name change - which I still say is a good thing. Yes there are extremists who want to kill us, but there is also a larger majority of people over there who didn’t have strong feelings one way or the other until they saw the oppression that Bush brought. Obama would be wise to separate himself from Bush on this issue, that’s just politics.
Me a liberal… that’s funny, if I was liberal wouldn’t I have voted for Obama instead of Barr? Why would I be railing against these government bailouts and spending in half my posts? The democrats sent a clear message to disenchanted libertarians - Thanks but no thanks. While there is some common ground it doesn’t outweigh the differences in my mind. Try reading more than one 150 word post before sticking your foot in your mouth next time.
You make a lot of assumptions about me in your comment.
“You think everybody wants to be our friend.” - No I just don’t like making unnecessary enemies.
“You don’t care that people want to kill us, not because we’ve done anything, but simply because we are Americans.”
Did I not still say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban need to be eradicated?
“If you pussies had been alive in the 1940’s we’d all be speaking German (or Japanese) and if you have your way now all our grandkids will be speaking Arabic.”
Umm… what? Never mind your ad-hominem attacks (which say enough itself), are you really that delusional? All of the poverty stricken people in the Middle East are going to take America over? How? With what?