What war? This is a popularity contest!
The Nondescript Something We May or May Not be Doing Involving People That We Misunderstand Initiative
**
BY: NCViking
Good bye Global War on Terror, Hello nondescript overseas contingency operations, current operations, operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, today’s joint fight, irregular warfare, etc. Apparently calling the GWOT what it is does not suit the new politically correct agenda of the White House. All Bush/Cheney Evil Empire acronyms must be scrubbed so European fuddy-duddies will like us, and people who support the likes of Mahmoud Imagonnajihad will stop burning our leaders in effigy and sentencing bloggers to death. Yikes!
From UPI:
WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) — A tiff is surfacing between the Pentagon and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget over whether excising phrases such “global war on terror” was ordered.
In a memo distributed to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s Office of Security Review said “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terror’. Please use ‘overseas contingency operation,’” The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) reported Wednesday. The memo said the directive came from the OMB, the executive branch agency that reviews public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.
OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer says there was no directive.
“There was no memo, no guidance,” Baer said Tuesday. “This is the opinion of a career civil servant.”
Either the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing or somebody is full of it. Either way, give me a break. Here is how Michelle puts it. Check out if you can see anything super cool in her statement …
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the Obama administration’s vehement denial that it is backing away from the phrase “Global War on Terror.” The phrase has long been a source of debate and rancor - not just on the left, but also on our side because it omits the important, specific context of global jihad and dhimmitude that we are supposed to be combatting.
Still, “Global War on Terror” is far superior to what the Obama White House has concocted. Despite the denials, military officials have gotten their instructions. A military source forwarded me an internal e-mail trail that illuminates the whitewashing. So long, “Global War on Terror.” Hello, [blank]. See the email here.
Good bye Global War on Terror, Hello nondescript overseas contingency operations, current operations, operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, today’s joint fight, irregular warfare, etc. Apparently calling the GWOT what it is does not suit the new politically correct agenda of the White House. All Bush/Cheney Evil Empire acronyms must be scrubbed so European fuddy-duddies will like us, and people who support the likes of Mahmoud Imagonnajihad will stop burning our leaders in effigy and sentencing bloggers to death. Yikes!
From UPI:
WASHINGTON, March 25 (UPI) — A tiff is surfacing between the Pentagon and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget over whether excising phrases such “global war on terror” was ordered.
In a memo distributed to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department’s Office of Security Review said “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘long war’ or ‘global war on terror’. Please use ‘overseas contingency operation,’” The Washington Post (NYSE:WPO) reported Wednesday. The memo said the directive came from the OMB, the executive branch agency that reviews public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.
OMB spokesman Kenneth Baer says there was no directive.
“There was no memo, no guidance,” Baer said Tuesday. “This is the opinion of a career civil servant.”
Either the left hand doesn’t know what the right is doing or somebody is full of it. Either way, give me a break. Here is how Michelle puts it. Check out if you can see anything super cool in her statement …
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the Obama administration’s vehement denial that it is backing away from the phrase “Global War on Terror.” The phrase has long been a source of debate and rancor - not just on the left, but also on our side because it omits the important, specific context of global jihad and dhimmitude that we are supposed to be combatting.
Still, “Global War on Terror” is far superior to what the Obama White House has concocted. Despite the denials, military officials have gotten their instructions. A military source forwarded me an internal e-mail trail that illuminates the whitewashing. So long, “Global War on Terror.” Hello, [blank]. See the email here.
**
Yesterday, the Washington Post reported on the Obama administration’s vehement denial that it is backing away from the phrase “Global War on Terror.”
The phrase has long been a source of debate and rancor - not just on the left, but also on our side because it omits the important, specific context of global jihad and dhimmitude that we are supposed to be combatting.
Still, “Global War on Terror” is far superior to what the Obama White House has concocted. Despite the denials, military officials have gotten their instructions. A military source forwarded me an internal e-mail trail that illuminates the whitewashing. So long, “Global War on Terror.” Hello, [blank].
To quote from one of the messages below: “There is no ‘replacement’ term offered.”
***
—–Original Message—–
Still, “Global War on Terror” is far superior to what the Obama White House has concocted. Despite the denials, military officials have gotten their instructions. A military source forwarded me an internal e-mail trail that illuminates the whitewashing. So long, “Global War on Terror.” Hello, [blank].
To quote from one of the messages below: “There is no ‘replacement’ term offered.”
***
—–Original Message—–
From: Sholtis, Tadd Lt Col SAF/PAO
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 10:22 AM
Subject: Status of “GWOT”
Sir/Ma’am-The SAF/PAO press desk has received numerous queries from the field this week about whether “Global War on Terrorism” or “GWOT” remains an acceptable term and, if not, what replaced it. At this point, I would not expect an announcement from on high that will provide clarity on this issue in the near future. We will notify you if that changes.
The story in today’s http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=9116. So “GWOT” may just die a slow and quiet death.
Therefore, if units are being pushed to provide guidance to commanders, the PAO recommendation is that there’s no need to update existing documents to eliminate GWOT, but future documents should avoid or at least minimize use of the term. In addition to “overseas contingency operations”-which was an improvised term during this year’s debate on budget supplements-there are enough concise, plain-English descriptions (”current operations,” “operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,” “today’s joint fight,” “irregular warfare,” etc.) that there’s no urgent need for a new acronym. Airmen should be able to explain themselves in writing or speaking in a way that doesn’t require continued reference to either “GWOT” or an official replacement.
Sir/Ma’am-The SAF/PAO press desk has received numerous queries from the field this week about whether “Global War on Terrorism” or “GWOT” remains an acceptable term and, if not, what replaced it. At this point, I would not expect an announcement from on high that will provide clarity on this issue in the near future. We will notify you if that changes.
The story in today’s http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=9116. So “GWOT” may just die a slow and quiet death.
Therefore, if units are being pushed to provide guidance to commanders, the PAO recommendation is that there’s no need to update existing documents to eliminate GWOT, but future documents should avoid or at least minimize use of the term. In addition to “overseas contingency operations”-which was an improvised term during this year’s debate on budget supplements-there are enough concise, plain-English descriptions (”current operations,” “operations in Afghanistan and Iraq,” “today’s joint fight,” “irregular warfare,” etc.) that there’s no urgent need for a new acronym. Airmen should be able to explain themselves in writing or speaking in a way that doesn’t require continued reference to either “GWOT” or an official replacement.
...
Lt Col Tadd Sholtis
Lt Col Tadd Sholtis
Deputy Chief, Current Operations
Secretary of the Air Force Office of Public Affairs
posted by jillosophy at 3/27/2009 01:55:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home