Cheney’s GOP is wrong; we are not fighting a “war on terrorism”
“New York Rep. Peter King, a leading Republican critic of the White House on terror policy, offered a piece of advice on Good Morning America today: Obama should speak the word “terrorism” more.
“You are saying someone should be held accountable. Name one other specific recommendation the president could implement right now to fix this,” host George Stephanopolous said to King.
“I think one main thing would be to — just himself to use the word terrorism more often,” said King, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security Committee.
King continued with more practical-minded suggestions, from expanding secondary screening to sending the Christmas bomber “into a military tribunal rather than the criminal justice system.”
King’s critique of Obama’s approach to terrorism echoes that of many other Republicans. Apparently, they believe that only the term “war on terror” can accurately describe both the nature of the threat against us and our proper response to that threat. Put bluntly but I think fairly, anybody who suggests that this is a “struggle” or anything short of war is in their eyes a hippie peacenik who just doesn’t “get it.”
But you know, we’ve been down this road before. Back in 2005, when it had become pretty obvious that the Bush strategy of his first term needed substantial revision, people inside the Bush administration tried to jettison the “war on terror” language in favor of something more accurate. And most of the pressure for that change came from top military leaders inside the Pentagon, who learned quicker than most that a new strategy was needed.
Gen. Richard Myers, who had been appointed chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by President Bush right after Sept. 11 and who served Bush loyally in that capacity for four years, helped lead the charge against “war on terror.” In a speech in July 2005 to the National Press Club, Myers explicitly rejected the phrase “because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution.” As Myers made clear, the solution is ”more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.”
Apparently, Myers is a hippie peacenik who doesn’t “get it.” He wants this country to be weak and defenseless.
So did Marine Lt. Gen. Wallace Gregson, who also condemned the “war on terror” phrase. “This is no more a war on terrorism than the Second World War was a war on submarines,” Gregson said in 2005. Like Myers, Gregson understood that military power could not bring us success in this struggle; at best, it could only fend off failure, and only for a while. And he wanted to change our rhetoric to reflect that reality.
He too was a damn hippie, cleverly disguised in a Marine uniform and three stars.
Even Stephen Hadley, President Bush’s national security adviser, got into the act. ”It is more than just a military war on terror,” Hadley told the press back then. ”It’s broader than that. It’s a global struggle against extremism.”
However, the most surprising advocate of dropping the “war on terror” language was Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. In speeches at the time, he instead referred to it as the “global struggle against violent extremism,” an awkward term that was quickly abbreviated by some as “G-SAVE.”
King and other Republicans are right about one thing: Language is important. If you call something a war, then you expect your military to win it. Myers and others understood that too. That’s exactly why by 2005, our military leaders were trying to change that language. They understood this was a problem that military power could not solve, and thus could not be a war.
In the end, the military-driven effort to rebrand the struggle came to naught when President Bush himself intervened, insisting that he preferred the “war on terror” language. But to his credit, Bush did accept the underlying change of emphasis that Myers, Gregson, Hadley and even Rumsfeld were advocating. He too began to argue that military power, while necessary, would in the end play a relatively small role in winning the struggle against Islamist extremists, and he began to steer U.S. policy accordingly.
Then as now, however, the most ardent advocate of the “war on terror” phrase and the hard-nosed, militarily aggressive policy it implies was Vice President Dick Cheney. Inside the Bush administration, Cheney eventually lost that debate and by the second term was largely frozen out of the decision-making circle. But whatever his other faults, Cheney is not a man who gives up easily; he fights on.
“(Obama) seems to think if he gets rid of the words ‘war on terror,’ we won’t be at war,” the former vice president said the other day, in wake of the Christmas bombing. “But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren’t, it makes us less safe.’’
It’s important to understand what’s going on here. Under Cheney’s guidance, Washington Republicans are proposing to reject not just President Obama’s approach but also the more measured approach of President Bush as it evolved thanks to the hard-learned lessons of 2001-05. They have learned nothing and forgotten nothing, and they hope the rest of us have forgotten everything.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
598 comments Add your comment
LA
January 6th, 2010
2:21 pm
BINGO!!!!!!!!!!
Like I said, a Cheney blog!!!!!!!
Jenifer
January 6th, 2010
2:21 pm
On 9/11, when Bush was president, 3000 people died.
On 12/25, Obama is president, no one died.
LA
January 6th, 2010
2:29 pm
Yeah, cause Bush killed 3000 people.
Jenifer
January 6th, 2010
2:31 pm
“Bush killed 3000 people.”
LA,
Yes, yes, he did. You’ve learned something today, good for you.
Jess
January 6th, 2010
2:31 pm
This blog is pure bait and switch. Had to get to the last sentence before Cheney was even mentioned.
LA
January 6th, 2010
2:32 pm
Democrats: “No, we are not fighting Muslim terrorists!”
Booooooooooooom…….
Nancy Pelosi: “No, that was not a nuke, that was a man made accident.”
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
2:33 pm
Conservatism is wanting everyone to achieve what they want so they don’t need to depend of the government.
Liberalism is wanting no one to achieve what they want so they will need to depend on the government.
Conservatives want everyone to be happy, wealthy and wise.
Liberals want everyone to be unhappy, poor and poorly educated. Looks like the liberals are winning.
Normal
January 6th, 2010
2:33 pm
Will Rogers, 1875-1935. R.I.P.
Ragnar Danneskjöld
January 6th, 2010
2:34 pm
I would be the first to agree that the United States is not fighting a war on terrorism; we are surrendering unilaterally. Back when we had a marginally competent president we were fighting a war against Islamists, a group of murderers who perverted the words of the Prophet Mohammed to justify their desire to impose their will on free people. Sorta like the Obamacrats.
Joan
January 6th, 2010
2:35 pm
I am not exactly sure, and doubt if many people are, why we are fighting in the Mideast. I know jihadists would love to destroy all of us infidels–they make that plain at every opportunity, as evidence demonstrations throughout Europe. Are we afraid to accept that we are in a religious war–jihad muslims against everyone else? I guess the question is, do we wait until they come into our neighborhoods to fight them, or do we try to weaken them somewhere else. I think people who try to bomb airplanes and buildings can rightly be called terrorists. What on earth are they doing but trying to terrorize?
jt
January 6th, 2010
2:36 pm
Cheney is a private citizen.
Why the lefty fascination with him?
The right isn’t fascinated by Gore. Just amused.
LA
January 6th, 2010
2:36 pm
Ragnar Danneskjöld, bingo.
President Obama=blame everyone else
Normal
January 6th, 2010
2:36 pm
Cheney=Judas?
LA
January 6th, 2010
2:38 pm
Obama=Benedict Arnold?
Bruno
January 6th, 2010
2:38 pm
“As Myers made clear, the solution is ”more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military.”
In behavioral psychology, there are two schools of thought with very different methodologies. Freudian analysis focuses on the “why” aspect of deviant behavior, which typically involves years of psychoanalysis with minimal results. Behavioral modification therapy concerns itself with one thing and one thing only, changing the objective behavior, with little concern about the “whys”.
Maybe it’s just me, but the “diplomatic, economic, and political” solution that Jay advocates sounds a lot like the Freudian approach.
Normal
January 6th, 2010
2:40 pm
I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.
- Mark Twain
Joan
January 6th, 2010
2:44 pm
Obama is simply the Manchurian candidate. Doing everything in his power to destroy a great country. But he looks nice, talks nice, and wears his clothes well, so the sheep follow–led by his cheerleader Cynthia. I notice Nancy Pelosi knows he is a born liar! Why can she get away with calling a liar a liar, but a Republican can’t call him one?
Jay
January 6th, 2010
2:48 pm
It is not merely mine, Bruno. It is also that of Myers, Gregson, Petraeus, McCrystal, Bush…
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
2:49 pm
Joan
Democrats always look nice and talk a great game.
Democrats love pretty people.
Doggone/GA
January 6th, 2010
2:49 pm
“Why can she get away with calling a liar a liar, but a Republican can’t call him one?”
Better be careful…you’re skating very close to the edge of calling hima liar. Keep an eye out, the men in black might be after you.
LA
January 6th, 2010
2:49 pm
MANBEARPIG.
Is that a bad word, Jay?
mm
January 6th, 2010
2:50 pm
But is was ok when Bush sent the shoe bomber to a civilian court and they locked him up in a US prison.
It’s ok that Bush waited 5 days after the shoe bomber attempted to blow up a plane, but it’s not ok for Obama to wait 5 days.
Hypocrites.
I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!
January 6th, 2010
2:52 pm
I KNOW we aren’t fighting a war on terrorism and silly mind games like this column prove it.
But we will lose it.
Unless the Republicans can get back in power.
Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)
January 6th, 2010
2:52 pm
Well, the guy on here the other day had it right. Just kill all the ragheads. That way, you’re bound to get the ones that want to kill us. We can Pray for the other ones.
Anyway, the War on Terrists is the best way to put it. I don’t know about you, but when I think of Terrists I get Terrified. I clean my antitank weapon and the two machine guns I use for hunting and self-defense and make sure I have lots of ammo. If Terrists don’t Terrify you, you’re either stupid or a librul or more probly both.
Cheney–Glory be unto him–is trying to keep us Safe. This Obama is trying to get us kilt. We need the army and marines and navy and everybody in the U.S. of A. to be fighting the War on Terrists. It’s kind of scary to think there might could be 600 or so people out there that want to wipe all 300 million of us out. Heck, if I didn’t have my weapons I’d probly be hiding under my bed about now. And that’s why I’m so glad to see some good Conservatives talking about passing a law to let school and colledge kids carry guns to class. If we can let drunks carry them in bars and parks, I don’t see why they can’t carry them too.
Excuse me. I’m getting away from the topic and Bookman might could ban me and that would be awful. Anyway, that’s all my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good p.m. everybody.
Sam
January 6th, 2010
2:53 pm
yeah but if we keep saying ‘war on terror’ then everything will magically be fixed….war on terror, war on terrorm, war on terror…there, now its all better. this is what passes for constructive criticism from cheney and the far right.
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
2:53 pm
mm
I’m just glad that liberals depend on the actions of Bush to justify what Obama does.
But of course the question is: If Bush was doing such a great job, that you guys LOVE to see Obama duplicating, why did we need a Democrat in the White house? You guys seem to be crazy about everything Bush did.
Normal
January 6th, 2010
2:54 pm
Cheney=clueless?
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
2:55 pm
Sam
**yeah but if we keep saying ‘war on terror’ then everything will magically be fixed**
Is that what you believe? Or do you just believe that conservatives believe that?
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
2:56 pm
Obama=Fascist?
Paul
January 6th, 2010
2:57 pm
Jay
Very nice.
I believe I wrote here some time back using the phrase “War on Terror” would be like people in advocating calling WWII “War Against Blitzkrieg” or “War on the Island Hopping Expansion.”
As far as Pres Obama not recognizing we’re at war: Pres Obama said we’re at war. Just a couple days ago. OBL said they’re at war with us. So the two major parties agree. Even you cited “the struggle against Islamist extremists.”
Personally, I’d be happy if our President could bring himself to use that phrase. It’d be like Pres Roosevelt never mentioning Nazis or Imperial Japan. Can’t understand why he won’t (I’ve some ideas, but I’ll save’em for later).
And as far as when he’ll ever use the term our enemies use to describe themselves: “Jihadist.” Forget it. Isn’t gonna happen.
TW
January 6th, 2010
2:57 pm
Wait a minute. I just looked up the word ‘credibility’ in the Webster.
Probably we don’t need to waste our time listening to repuglicans anymore about anything
Normal
January 6th, 2010
2:57 pm
Cheney=deferrment king?
Joey
January 6th, 2010
2:58 pm
I believe that:
Shoe bomber=US citizen.
Skivies bomber=Nigerian citizen.
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
2:59 pm
Obama=Big Fascist?
Paul
January 6th, 2010
3:00 pm
mm 2:50
I believe a lot of Bush supporters are amused that Obama supporters cite one of the actions they dislike that Bush took, to justify Obama’s actions.
Jay
January 6th, 2010
3:00 pm
Joey, you believe incorrectly.
Reid is a British citizen.
Next objection?
Jess
January 6th, 2010
3:01 pm
I agree, we are not fighting a war on terrorism. We were, and doing a pretty good job of it but no longer.
Taxpayer
January 6th, 2010
3:01 pm
Well, if $680+ billion annually defines a small role in our war against terrierists, I don’t want to see what a big bank roll look like.
Joey
January 6th, 2010
3:01 pm
Thanks Jay. I know you enjoyed that.
stands for decibels
January 6th, 2010
3:01 pm
“I think one main thing would be to — just himself to use the word terrorism more often,”
I know it’ll never make it into our Constitution, but there really ought to be a reasonable IQ minimum in place in order to be able to serve in Congress.
Normal
January 6th, 2010
3:02 pm
Cheney=yesterday’s news?
Bruno
January 6th, 2010
3:03 pm
“It is not merely mine, Bruno. It is also that of Myers, Gregson, Petraeus, McCrystal, Bush…”
Jay–The “myth” has always been that the roots of terrorism are poverty and oppression. From my perspective, Bin Laden blows that theory out of the water. Here’s an interesting take on the situation by Alan Dershowitz:
http://www.sullivan-county.com/x/islamic_fascism2.htm
From the link:
“Why do these overprivileged and well-educated young men and women support this culture of death, while impoverished and oppressed Tibetans continue to celebrate life despite their occupation by China for half a century? Why have other oppressed people throughout history not resorted to suicide bombings and terrorism? The answer lies in differences among the elite leadership of various groups and causes. The leaders of Islamic radical causes, especially the Wahhabis, advocate and incite suicide terrorism, while the leaders of other causes advocate different means.”
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
3:03 pm
JAy
We are all just so pleased that you are admitting that Bush’s actions were so good, so wise and so correct that you are proud of the fact that Obama is modeling his strategy around the Bush Doctrine.
I’m proud of you, man. It takes a big man to admit that he was wrong, especially after some of the things you said about Bush.
jt
January 6th, 2010
3:04 pm
Cheney=deferrment king?
Correct. So why pay attention to him.?
It would seem as if Obermann, Mathews, and Bookman have a bromance or something.
Nothing Is Free
January 6th, 2010
3:04 pm
Today’s news=Fascist taking over our country.
FinnMcCool
January 6th, 2010
3:09 pm
like the War on Christmas!
We can’t win that one either…
I scoop ;~] Uleak :~o
January 6th, 2010
3:09 pm
Lets trivialize terrorism by having a name contest so that we don’t have to call it a war.
What do you call suicide bombings and the attempt to stop it?
Crusade? Struggle. Kampf?
Safe Skies Initiative? SSI? So far all the terror attempts involve planes.
I’m out of ideas. Judge Roy Bean had some ideas what to call it. Lets call it justifiable homicide and forget the whole thing.
Normal
January 6th, 2010
3:10 pm
Y’all,
just got this in my email. An answer to my letters about Afghanistan.
Take it for what it’s worth…
Dear Friend:
Thank you for writing. As our service members in
Afghanistan continue to bear an enormous burden for their
fellow citizens, serving with honor, we owe them our
undying gratitude.
More than eight years after September 11, 2001, the
Taliban is resurgent, and al Qaeda continues to threaten our
country from safe havens in the border region of
Afghanistan and Pakistan. Shortly after taking office, I
approved a longstanding request for additional troops to
disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, and to prevent its capacity to threaten America
and our allies. We have made progress on some important
objectives, but huge challenges remain, and the status quo
is not sustainable. After exploring different options with
our military and civilian leadership, I have determined that
it is vital to our national interest to send an additional
30,000 United States troops to Afghanistan. I made this
difficult decision because I am convinced that our security
is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This is the
epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is
from here that we were attacked on September 11th and
that new attacks are being plotted. To keep the pressure on
al Qaeda, we must increase the stability and capacity of our
partners in the region.
Our objectives are to deny al Qaeda a safe haven, to
reverse the Taliban’s momentum and weaken its ability to
overthrow the Afghan government, and to strengthen the
capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government
so that they can take responsibility for their future. To
achieve this, our strategy requires a military effort that will
create the conditions for a transition; civilian assistance that
builds the capacity of the Afghan government while
holding it accountable; and an effective partnership with
Pakistan to root out al Qaeda safe-havens. I have asked
that our commitment be joined by contributions from our
allies, and they have already responded by agreeing to
provide additional troops and resources.
Our commitment to Afghanistan will not be open-
ended. Our troops will begin to come home after 18
months at a pace that will be determined based upon
conditions on the ground. By identifying this point of
transition, we will make it clear to the Afghan government
that they will have to take more responsibility for
sustaining security. To protect our country, we will also
have to invest in our homeland security, improve and better
coordinate our intelligence, secure loose nuclear materials
from terrorists, use diplomacy to strengthen our alliances,
and draw on the strength of our values. Thank you again
for writing.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
@@
January 6th, 2010
3:11 pm
So what would you suggest, jay?
Dick’s not one to mince words…just calling it like he sees it. The word terrorism is rather vague though. We can’t mention the word Islam…against Islamofacists…Islamic extremists ’cause the religion finds that insulting.
The War on Jihadists????
HECK! It was Osama Bin Laden, himself who issued a declaration of war (1996 Fatwah) against the United States. As I recall it was entitled “Declaration of War against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Places.” Now it’s been extended to include The West, which includes any one or all of the allies that have joined in the effort.
In that same fatwah, OBL cautioned Muslims against fighting among themselves. Here’s what he said verbatim:
An internal war is a great mistake, no matter what reasons are there for it. the presence of the occupier-the USA- forces will control the outcome of the battle for the benefit of the international Kufr.
His (OBL’s) war is being fought from within and without. I’d say he ain’t faring too well. Overestimated his significance, he did.
Jay
January 6th, 2010
3:11 pm
I agree, Bruno. Poverty has very little to do with it.
Free, there’s no question that second-term Bush was better on these issues than first-term Bush.
JT, there’s no real question that Cheney is taking the rhetorical lead on this point. He says it first, and others echo it. If you follow that last link in the post, you’ll see Michael Steele acknowledging it directly.