Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Obama Officially Retires 'War on Terror' ... But What is Taking Its Place?

Posted by Liliana Segura, AlterNet at 4:15 AM on March 26, 2009.


Now under the banner of "overseas contingency operations," the mission formerly known as the "war on terror" isn't going anywhere.
obamaandpetraeus

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form

Get War on Iraq in your
mailbox!

 

In its ongoing efforts to rework and rebrand the military missions it inherited from the Bush administration, the Obama White House has reportedly scrapped the phrase "war on terror," a term that the president has conspicuously avoided since taking office.

In a recently leaked e-mail to Pentagon staff, Dave Riedel of the Department of Defense's office of security review wrote: "This administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror'" -- a message he asked recipients to "please pass on to your speech writers."
So what is the Obama administration replacing it with?

"Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation,'" Reidel wrote.

It sounds a lot less sexy than "war on terror" (or, for that matter, the short-lived "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" proposed by Bush officials a few years back); in fact, in military-speak, "overseas contingency operation" has been around for years.

"Overseas contingency operations is a very technical term that has been used for decades in connection with statutory operations," human rights attorney Scott Horton says. According to Horton (an expert in legal matters relating to armed conflicts), it is a catch-all phrase that refers to "military operations of any kind overseas." "It is plain vanilla, technical jargon that totally content neutral," he says.

In the conservative press and the right-wing blogoshpere, the term has been mocked as "vague and meaningless," a sign of a "weak-kneed" administration. Elsewhere, it has functioned more as a punchline: "Let's face it: 'Overseas Contingency Operation' does not exactly roll off the tongue," wrote a blogger on Newsweek's website. "Just as 'The artist formerly known as Prince' was always still 'Prince,' the 'war' will probably always be the 'war.'"

Indeed. Which is why it's worth remembering that, no matter what he calls it, Obama has little intention of declaring the mission formerly known as the "war on terror" accomplished anytime soon. In fact, officials from the Office of Management and Budget to the Pentagon have issued strong denials against claims that the phrase itself was officially banned. "I sometimes am amused by things that I read in the press," OMB director Peter Orszag said on Wednesday. "I am not aware of any communication that I've had on that topic." Likewise, Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said he had "never received such a directive" and said "perhaps somebody within OMB may have been a little over-exuberant."

Name games aside, from his dubious Iraq withdrawal plan to escalation in Afghanistan to drone bombings in Pakistan, Obama has not just inherited Bush's "war on terror," he has embraced it -- just not with the same blunt belligerence of the Bush administration.

Politically, this is probably a smart move. "Obama consistently used the term 'war on terror' only to describe the policies of the old admistation," Horton points out. In fact, he says, the term "war on terror" was unpopular for years in the Bush administration -- the Joint Chiefs of Staff disliked the phrase from the jump. ("When you're the most paramount power in the world, you don't define war as something you could lose," says Horton.) "There was a consensus view at State and DoD to drop it," Horton says. But one person wanted it to keep for "domestic political purposes": Karl Rove.

With Americans long fed up with the propaganda and political manipulation that birthed the term "rovian," the fact that Obama appears to be eschewing such an intellectually dishonest frame -- one that was always shamelessly political -- must come as welcome news. "They're moving back to much more traditional ideas of war," says Horton. But, like the Obama administration's recent expunging of the Bush-era term "enemy combatants" to refer to prisoners at Guantanamo and Bagram (only to maintain its right to hold them indefinitely), such rebranding is of little practical use if it doesn't bring a real change in policy. "Overseas Contingency Operations" may not sound like the language of war, but it is just as broad and open-ended as a "war on terror" was.

"It could be a military exercise," says Horton. "It could be anything."

Digg!

Tagged as: iraq, pentagon, afghanistan, war on terror, barack obama, pakistan, department of defense, overseas contingency oper

Liliana Segura is a staff writer and editor of AlterNet's Rights and Liberties and War on Iraq Special Coverage.


Why Is it Different When Americans Rape?
Steven Green and Uday Hussein both committed the same crime, so why is the media's treatment of them so different?
Post by Byard Duncan. May 22, 2009.
Rumsfeld's Pentagon Published Bible Verses on Top-Secret Intel Reports
The cover sheets featured inspirational Bible verses printed over military images.
Post by Ali Frick. May 18, 2009.
Fact: We Tortured to Justify War
There simply is no good reason why the leading members of the Bush administration should not stand trial.
Post by tristero. May 15, 2009.
Advertisement
Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Differentiating locale
Posted by: Purple Girl on Mar 26, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Real the 'War on Terror' should have included those home grown Evangelical groups too. 'War on Religious Extremeism' should have been the goal. consider how many terrorist attacks have been committed by the 'Christian Right' here within our borders- Clinic bombings, MD Assasinations, Atlanta Olympics, church Shootings...Oh and the individual attacks are endless (leaving a man to die tied to a WY fence post, Ignoring GRID leading to an near epidemic of HIV & AIDS deaths).
I had to laugh (cry) when W said we had to fight them 'There, so we wouldn't have to fight them here'- We have been fighting and suffering from our own Extremeist attacks for decades. They didn't come from some Cave in the ME, They came out of MegaChurches all around the country. And they Call the Catholic Church the Great Whore (of who Satan?), Ya Got 'em Beat Evangelicals- far more deadly. At least their was a WArning label on Catholism, Not so for the so called 'Born agains' or "moral majority"- The New Vatican oppressive heirarchy.
Why be concerned about just one sect of Religious fanatics, when we have had so many more attacks committed by another sect. In fact their doctrines are essentially the same- so they are merely shedding blood to see who beomes the Dominate religious force. if they can't convert you- they just slaughter you. Same Shit, Different century ah?
Hagee calls for the pre-emptive Strike on the Iranian people- why is he not called a Terrorist?Jihad/ Holy War/ 'Crusade'- are synonyms for the same idea."soldier of God" "Warrior of God"... Jihadist just worhipping a different sacred cow, using a differnet graven image to commit a mortal sin.'Thou Shall not Kill' does not have an (*) after it- no disclaimer or exemptions.And aren't both just coveting the 'flock' of the other. Aren't they essentially trying to 'steal' those followers away and make their ideology the most 'powerful', make their fleshy vessel or ancient texts the most 'Mighty'. And if they can't convince you to convert to their doctrines- they just slaughter you, or oppress you instead.
These are not devout Faithfuls, at least not to the 'Almighty Creator'. They fail to follow even the most basic of 'golden rules'- seem they are acting in direct conflict to those ancient rules of human engagement- reason Humanities history is filled with so much blood shed. Who would enjoy such disregard for these rules and the acts in definace of them- "Could it be Satan?"
If we expect the people of the ME to get their Dangerous Terrorists under control- we must do the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

GOOD NEWS
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 26, 2009 7:18 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
War on Terror never did make any sense. What I'm wondering is whether or not this will have an effect on the "Broad executive powers during war time" crap that Bush fed us. Technically we have not been at war, it was Bush's way of giving himself authority that was not rightfully his. In making this change, does Obama concede these powers? Is John Yoo sharpening his pencil? ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama The Great Renamer
Posted by: DCostello2 on Mar 26, 2009 9:11 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoop Dee F'ing Doo!!! We're still pursuing an illegal and immoral war with Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. Whatever O-blah-blah wants to call it, it's still happening. He's renamed the troops in Iraq too so that they're not officially called combat troops so now they can stay and be in compliance with how he's going to 'end the Iraq War'. He's renamed assf'ing the tax payer to be called saving the banks. How about actually DOING something instead of renaming things.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Marketing is everything
Posted by: Bliss Doubt on Mar 27, 2009 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in our country. "...efforts to rework and rebrand...", perfect description Liliana.

Obama is separating himself from Bush, without changing much, and those who always read between the lines with him will continue to believe that he is making changes.

I'm not sure that "Long War", which we'll hear over and over again, isn't an even more depressing term than "War on Terror".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

concept wars never made sense to me...
Posted by: Bearzerker on Mar 29, 2009 12:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... "War on Terror", "War on Drugs", War on... Workers

Funny how it takes a Republican to declare a war on a thought, but they did it and got away with it.
Is funnier how its usually left to Democrats to play the parents and bring a sense of order to the chaos Republicans bring

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]