When you can't win a war change the name

sunnystarr

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Thu Jul-28-05 11:51 AM
Original message

When you can't win a war change the name

I've been pondering this for few days trying to devine what they're up to next. Because everything for them has an underlying, usually sinister purpose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/26/politics/26strategy.html?pagewanted=all&oref=login

Of course my first thought was that if you can't win a war then change the name. But that was too benign.

Ominously the NYT article states:

In recent speeches and news conferences, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the nation's senior military officer have spoken of "a global struggle against violent extremism" rather than "the global war on terror," which had been the catchphrase of choice. Administration officials say that phrase may have outlived its usefulness, because it focused attention solely, and incorrectly, on the military campaign.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the National Press Club on Monday that he had "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution." He said the threat instead should be defined as violent extremists, with the recognition that "terror is the method they use."

Besides making me wonder why the name of the war is suddenly reduced to a "catchphrase of choice," raising the question, 'has this war had a name at all', both Rumsfeld and Myers are seeking to remove that this war is focused on a military campaign, "because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform being the solution."

So listen up people, we're not at war. Forget the "shock and awe," erase the images of the dead and wounded Iraqis (especially the children), forget our dead and wounded family members, friends, fellow Americans and those who are still risking their lives every day. Especially important is to forget the torture.

If we're not at war then no Geneva Conventions. By changing the meme our administration can avoid accountability and be left to torture in peace and at will. As an added bonus how can we commit war crimes if we're not at war? That takes care of an internation war tribunal. Ah the benefits of changing a meme!

Then the article informs us:

Although the military is heavily engaged in the mission now, he said, future efforts require "all instruments of our national power, all instruments of the international communities' national power." The solution is "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than it is military," he concluded.

Notice that we're engaged in a "mission" not a "war." So is Bush a "mission president" and no longer a "war president" as he so often tells us? Then this is the most expensive "mission" in the history of any country.

and the change in *'s thinking:

Administration and Pentagon officials say the revamped campaign has grown out of meetings of President Bush's senior national security advisers that began in January, and it reflects the evolution in Mr. Bush's own thinking nearly four years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

I take this to mean that Bush is admitting that he was WRONG, that he made a MISTAKE! So they poured over Kerry's solutions and decided to go in the direction Kerry outlined. Assuming of course that they can glean "all instruments of the international communities' nation power," which in simple terms appears to be the support of the international community. The support we didn't have and what we did have is quickly eroding.

Mr. Rumsfeld spoke in the new terms... described America's efforts as it "wages the global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization.".

Did our Congress vote to "wage{s} global struggle against the enemies of freedom, the enemies of civilization?" Is this the purpose that 300 BILLION American taxpayer dollars have been allocated?

This sounds like a crusade to me. Who defines these enemies? Can the meme be changed to include progressive thinking Dems in the future? After the administration and it's henchmen have called us UN-Americans who espouse Communistic ideals, as well as other similarly disparaging remarks, this new meme won't include us in the near future.

However, the "mission" is now a "global struggle." Can we now expect a never-ending drain on our economy which threatens every social program we hold dear and which keeps us economically surviving? This new meme has no end. There will always be enemies so by definition we will always be in "struggle." I guess we'll know they succeeded when Webster defines war as a "struggle" and a "mission."

Prince changed his name to a symbol and became known as "the artist formerly known as Prince." The Nazi's had a symbol, one outlawed in Germany after their "struggle" ended. Their symbol became analogous with nation building, for pre-emptively attacking sovereign nations justified by merely identifying them as enemies.

So as we now will have "the struggle formerly known as the War on Terror," let's not be fooled and let's remind the media not to be fooled of the real motives of those in power who are destroying our country while pillaging nations and destroying their human treasure. The symbol is the same, even though we're attacked when we reference it. Iraq was the first and it won't be the last unless they are stopped. Another 9/11 looms on the horizon and the target, deserving or not, will be Iran. http://www.justinlogan.com/justinlogancom/2005/07/what_is_the_pla.html

When will Americans stand up and say enough is enough?