how the world press sees the current American insanity
but first, a word from our sponsors--
The crux of our endless War on Terror, by Glenn Greenwald
No more GWOT?
Wednesday, March 25, 2009, FOXNews.com
The Obama administration has ordered an end to use of the phrase "Global War on Terror," a label adopted by the Bush administration shortly after the September 11, 2001 attacks, the Washington Post reported on Tuesday.
In a memo sent this week from the Defense Department's office of security to Pentagon staffers, members were told, "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.'"
A spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget, from whom the direction reportedly came, told the Post there was no guidance given from the agency and that it was merely the "opinion of a career civil servant."
A Pentagon spokesman said there was no memo or specific directive instructing
officials to stop using the 'Global War on Terror' phrase but acknowledged that
the department has officially adopted 'Overseas Contingency Operation' as the
new term for the war.
Remarks by John O. Brennan, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security
and Counterterrorism – As Prepared for Delivery
“A New Approach to Safeguarding Americans”
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Washington, DC August 6, 2009
"How you define a problem shapes how you address it. As many have noted, the President does not describe this as a “war on terrorism.” That is because “terrorism” is but a tactic—a means to an end, which in al Qaeda’s case is global domination by an Islamic caliphate. Confusing ends and means is dangerous, because by focusing on the tactic, we risk floundering among the terrorist trees while missing the growth of the extremist forest. And ultimately, confusing ends and means is self-defeating, because you can never fully defeat a tactic like terrorism any more than you can defeat the tactic of war itself.
Likewise, the President does not describe this as a “global war.” Yes, al Qaeda and other terrorists groups operate in many corners of the world and continue to launch attacks in different nations, as we saw most recently in Jakarta. And yes, the United States will confront al Qaeda aggressively wherever it exists so that it enjoys no safe haven. But describing our efforts as a “global war” only plays into the warped narrative that al Qaeda propagates. It plays into the misleading and dangerous notion that the U.S. is somehow in conflict with the rest of the world. It risks setting our Nation apart from the world, rather than emphasizing the interests we share. And perhaps most dangerously, portraying this as a “global” war risks reinforcing the very image that al Qaeda seeks to project of itself—that it is a highly organized, global entity capable of replacing sovereign nations with a global caliphate. And nothing could be further from the truth."
from a Pentagon News Advisory September 16, 2009
". . .Monti is recognized for actions above and beyond the call of duty during combat that cost him his life on June 21, 2006, in Afghanistan. He is the sixth service member to be awarded the Medal of Honor during the Global War on Terror, the second to receive it for actions in Afghanistan."
53 DoD IG Civilian Personnel Receive the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Global War on Terrorism
Medal for the Global War on TerrorismJuly 12, 2010 – Department of Defense Inspector General Gordon S. Heddell today presented the Secretary of Defense Medal for the Global War on Terrorism to 53 DoD IG civilian personnel in recognition of their service in Southwest Asia.
The presentations were made during the DoD Inspector General Twenty-First Annual Honorary Awards Ceremony, where Mr. Heddell also presented 43 other civilian awards, including the Distinguished Service Award, Superior Civilian Service Award, and Meritorious Civilian Service Award.
The GWOT medal is awarded to civilian employees of the DoD who, on or after September 11, 2001, participated abroad in direct support of a U.S. military GWOT operation in a location designated as an area of eligibility for that operation. Personnel must have been engaged in direct support for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days, or have been killed or medically evacuated from the area of eligibility while providing direct support in the designated operation and location.
Washington, Aug 3, 2007 — Former (Republican) House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Thursday the Bush administration is waging a "phony war" on terrorism, warning that the country is losing ground against the kind of Islamic radicals who attacked the country on Sept. 11, 2001.
A more effective approach, said Gingrich, would begin with a national energy strategy aimed at weaning the country from its reliance on imported oil and some of the regimes that petro-dollars support.
"None of you should believe we are winning this war. There is no evidence that we are winning this war," the ex-Georgian told a group of about 300 students attending a conference for collegiate conservatives.
General Peter Pace, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that fighting terrorism is a police problem (which means the "Global War on Terror" is a bogus mistake):
"People talk about, 'Are you winning?' First, you have to define: What is winning? And I don't mean to be glib about that. Winning in this war on terrorism is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function.
"Example. Washington, D.C., has crime, but it has a police force that is able to keep that crime below a level at which the normal citizens can go about their daily jobs and the government can function. That's what you're looking for on the war on terrorism, whether it be Iraq, Afghanistan, or anyplace else."
And Rumsfeld agreed: : "At the present time -- we've used the phrase 'global war against terror,' which I find not perfect. I think that it is really a long struggle, as opposed to a war, which implies armies, navies, air forces and Marines contesting each other. It is irregular, it's asymmetric, and it is not against terrorism per se; it is against these violent extremists who use terrorism, but they also could use other things."
More from Rummy: " I guess I don't think I would have called it the war on terror. I don't mean to be critical of those who have or did or -- and certainly I've used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? I say it because the word "war" conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War, and it creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within the 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. And it isn't going to happen that way.
" Furthermore, it's not a war on terror. Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and impose their -- in the hands of a small group of clerics, their dark vision on all the people that they can control.
"So 'war on terror' has a problem for me, and I've worked to try to reduce the extent to which that's used, and increase the extent to which we understand it more as a long war or a struggle or a conflict, not against terrorism but against a relatively small number, but terribly dangerous and lethal, violent extremists."
and Colin Powell--
What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?
I would approach this differently, in almost Marshall-like terms. What are the great opportunities out there—ones that we can take advantage of? It should not be just about creating alliances to deal with a guy in a cave in Pakistan. It should be about how do we create institutions that keep the world moving down a path of wealth creation, of increasing respect for human rights, creating democratic institutions, and increasing the efficiency and power of market economies? This is perhaps the most effective way to go after terrorists. . .The only thing that can really destroy us is us. We shouldn't do it to ourselves, and we shouldn't use fear for political purposes—scaring people to death so they will vote for you, or scaring people to death so that we create a terror-industrial complex.
and Henry Kissinger--
I don't like the term "war on terror" because terror is a method, not a political movement.
and, last but not least, President Bush--
They can't stand the thought of a free society in the midst of a part of the world that's just desperate for freedom. These people don't like freedom. You know why? Because it clashes with their ideology. We actually misnamed the war on terror, it ought to be the struggle against ideological extremists who do not believe in free societies who happen to use terror as a weapon to try to shake the conscience of the free world. (Laughter.)
No, that's what they do. They use terror to -- and they use it effectively, because we've got good hearts. We're people of conscience, they aren't. They will cut off a person's head like that, and not even care about it. That's why I tell you, you can't talk sense to them. Maybe some think you can, I don't. I don't think you can negotiate with them.
The "GWOT" is actually making the situation worse.
Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday [Oct 8, 2007]. A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.
"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.
"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimised but this will require a change in policy at every level."
He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.
The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria.
In Afghanistan, Rogers also called for an immediate scaling down of military activities, an injection of more civil aid and negotiations with militia groups aimed at bringing them into the political process.
If such measures were adopted it would still take "at least
10 years to make up for the mistakes made since 9/11."
Terror: A state of intense fear: FRIGHT. So what the government is publicizing is a war on fright, and it does this by frightening us with color-coded alerts, attack scare stories and repeated reports about thwarted attacks. It makes no sense. Is it a war on terrorists? George W. Bush says "we are fighting terrorists there so we don't have to fight them here." But in San Antonio, on November 30th, 2005, Bush said: "The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis. . ." As a matter of fact our heavy-handed military actions in Iraq serve to recruit terrorists, so Iraq is now a breeding ground and training field for new terrorists. That makes no sense, either.
What is the origin of the phrase that the government uses? From xymphora.blogspot.com:
People forget that the inventor of the ‘war on terror’, the war we are fighting at great expense and inconvenience but can never win, is a guy called Benjamin Netanyahu. He set out the basic principles in books and in a famous speech (or here) he made at the Jewish Agency Assembly Plenary meetings on June 24, 2001 (note the date). On the morning of September 11, Netanyahu said: “It’s [he means the attacks] very good. Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].” The plan has always been to involve the Americans and the British in the Zionist phony ‘war on terror’. The ‘war on terror’ is simply a propaganda trick developed to allow Israel to steal land from, amongst others, the Palestinians.
The latest National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), which was recently leaked to the press (God forbid that mere citizens should know these things), provides some of the bad results of the GWOT:
• The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement.
• Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1) Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US sentiment among most Muslims, all of which jihadists exploit.
• Anti-US and anti-globalization sentiment is on the rise and fueling other radical ideologies. This could prompt some leftist, nationalist, or separatist groups to adopt terrorist methods to attack US interests.
The free press in other countries, unlike the corporate media in the United States which parrots government propaganda, sees through the charade with comments much like the NIE. Some examples of their perspectives follow, but first, some domestic news:
Afghanistan aid agencies say Back Off GWOT, Kabul Press, Afghanistan
'Warmongering Has Weakened Washington', THE WORLD FROM BERLIN
Top CIA Expert Slams Bush Anti-Terror ActionsInter
Press Service, United States
Even If America Changes its Ways, Global Disaster Looms, Al-Khaleej, United Arab Emirates
US suffers decline in power and prestige, survey reveals, Financial Times, London
After September 11, a 'Blind, Untrammeled Ruthless' Policy Failure, The Nation, Pakistan
'Petraeus or Betray Us', Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates
By Expanding East, U.S. and NATO Play Dangerous Game, Novosti, Russia
USA Inc. Recalls Faulty Pro-Democracy Products, The Australian, Australia
Afghanistan: Why NATO cannot winAsia Times, China
Iran is the Key,But Bush Must Open the DoorXinjingbao, China
Iraq's Uncompensated Victims Lose FaithAzzaman, Iraq
Finland President Criticizes American Terror LegislationHelingin Sanomat, Finland
Iraq: Trying to spin the unspinnableAsia Times, China
'Removing Saddam strengthened Iran'Aljazeera, Qatar
George W. Bush's 'Ridiculous Rallying Cry'Financial Times Deutschland, Germany
End Of The New American Century?Die Zeit, Germany
September 11: 'A Terrible Shock; a Disastrous Response'24 heures, Switzerland
Five Years of War on Terror: 'Time for a New Strategy'NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands
Europe's Verdict: Bush Has 'Ruined America's Standing' Die Zeit, Germany
Middle East: what will emerge from the ruins?Le Monde, France
Terrorists Threaten World Peace, But So Do the 'Great Powers' Diario Co Latino, El Salvador
For Israel and America: U.N. Ceasefire Deal 'An Unmitigated Disaster', Jerusalem Post, Israel
'The Peace of the Yankee is the Peace of the Grave', La Jornada, Mexico
America's Isolation, NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands
Stand up to US, Voters tell Blair, The Guardian, London
An Absolute Disaster Ahead, Tunis Hebdo, Tunisia
This is why the US is losing its credibility, The New Anatolian, Turkey
Israel and the US fall into another trap of their own making-- The Sydney Morning Herald, Australia
America's 'Return to International Legality'-- Le Figaro, France
America's Chronic Betrayal of its Birthright and Ideals-- The Nation, Pakistan
America Uses Superman to Promote its Fascist Agenda--The Nation, Pakistan
Guantanamo a 'Mark of Disgrace on the Forehead of Humanity'--Times of Oman, Oman
Bush 'Demonizes' Palestinians While 'Exonerating the Torturer'--Tunis Hebdo, Tunisia
History: Committee on the Present Danger--Asia Times
Marchers Resent Bush's Iraq-Hungary Analogy-- Nepsza-badsag, Hungary
Mujahideen Killed' at 'Jail Run By Criminals'-- Al-Seyassah, Kuwait
Japan's face-saving exit from Iraq --Asia Times
US and the UN: 'Bring out the wackos' --Asia Times
'The US has failed in Somalia - again'--Al Jazeerah
Under the Full Glare of the Iraqi Sun, America Breaks the Law--Azzaman, Iraq
Why are All Inmates at Guantanamo Muslim? --Al-Watan, Qatar
Now, the Shoe is on Bush's Foot!--Tunis Hebdo, Tunisia
'Imperialist Warmongers' Must End Their Spying--Korean News
Guantanamo: 'The Attack of the Hanged Men' --El Tiempo, Colombia
Europe still sees US as greatest threat to stability--Financial Times, England
Guantanamo 'Shows Chasm Between America and World' "The United States remains deaf." Le Monde, France
'The Guantanamo Machine Gets Jammed' 24heures, Switzerland
U.S. Will Either Talk to Iran or Hand Win to al-Qaeda Iran News Daily, Iran
'Washington in Disarray' Over Somali Taliban Victory Liberte, Algeria
Washington too 'Selfless' to Succeed in Afghanistan PakTribune, Pakistan
'Zarqawi Has Won'Le Monde, France -------------------------------------------------------
This page was inspired by and is dedicated to the forty-two Democratic congressional representatives that voted for House Resolution 861 on June 16, 2006 (passed: 256-153). These forty-two spineless individuals voted for a piece of nonsensical propaganda that supports the most crooked and unpopular president in modern history in his prosecution of an illegal war which is wantonly killing and injuring thousands of people, draining the treasury and making the United States a world pariah under the aegis of the concocted "Global War on Terrorism"--a meaningless phrase now being used to extend and strengthen the American Empire in the Middle East. It's a race to the bottom for low popularity ratings, and these Dems are tying themselves to Bush's sinking popularity in defiance of the American people and even of the majority of troops who want Operation Iraqi Fiasco ended this year. Support the troops? Not them. Why do only 3% of Americans fully trust Congress? The evidence follows.
Here is the resolution they voted for (try to keep a straight face): Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (1) honors all those Americans who have taken an active part in the Global War on Terror, whether as first responders protecting the homeland, as servicemembers overseas, as diplomats and intelligence officers, or in other roles; (2) honors the sacrifices of the United States Armed Forces and of partners in the Coalition, and of the Iraqis and Afghans who fight alongside them, especially those who have fallen or been wounded in the struggle, and honors as well the sacrifices of their families and of others who risk their lives to help defend freedom; (3) declares that it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq; (4) declares that the United States is committed to the completion of the mission to create a sovereign, free, secure, and united Iraq; (5) congratulates Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki and the Iraqi people on the courage they have shown by participating, in increasing millions, in the elections of 2005 and on the formation of the first government under Iraq's new constitution; (6) calls upon the nations of the world to promote global peace and security by standing with the United States and other Coalition partners to support the efforts of the Iraqi and Afghan people to live in freedom; and (7) declares that the United States will prevail in the Global War on Terror, the noble struggle to protect freedom from the terrorist adversary.
Here is a list of these Democratic chickenhawks with ratings from the Peace Majority Report as of June 18, 2006: Robert Cramer, D-AL, 21% Marion Berry, D-AR, 42% Mike Ross, D-AR, 29% Vic Snyder, D-AR, 43% Howard Berman, D-CA, 41% Dennis Cardoza, D-CA, 34% Jim Costa, D-CA, 33% John Salazar, D-CO, 31% John Barrow, D-GA, 22% Sanford Bishop, D-GA, 25% Jim Marshall, D-GA, 21% Ed Case, D-HI, 34% Leonard Boswell, D-IA, 45% Melissa Bean, D-IL, 29% Jerry Costello, D-IL, 46% Dan Lipinski, D-IL, 35% Dennis Moore, D-KS, 35% Ben Chandler, D-KY, 24% Charlie Melancon, D-LA, 22% Stephen Lynch, D-MA, 47% Colin Peterson, D-MN, 26% Gene Taylor, D-MS, 24% Bennie Thompson, D-MS, 61%, Bob Etheridge, D-NC, 35% Mike McIntyre, D-NC, 25% Brian Higgins, D-NY, 35% Carolyn McCarthy, D-NY, 32% Dan Boren, D-OK, 28% Tim Holden, D-PA, 27% John Spratt, D-SC, 34% Stephanie Herseth, D-SD, 23% Jim Cooper, D-TN, 37% Lincoln Davis, D-TN, 34% Bart Gordon, D-TN, 36% Henry Cuellar, D-TX, 13% Chet Edwards, D-TX, 28% Gene Green, D-TX, 33% Jim Matheson, D-UT, 36% Rick Boucher, D-VA, 47% Rick Larsen, D-WA, 51% Adam Smith, D-WA, 48% Ron Kind, D-WI, 48%
Incidentally, you don't see the name of John Murtha, D-PA on this list. He said: "'Stay the course.' That's not a plan. We've got to change direction, that's what we have to do. You can't, you can't sit there in the air-conditioned office and tell these troops they're carrying 70 pounds on their back inside these armored vessels and hit with IEDs every day, seeing their friends blown up, their buddies blown up, and he says, 'Stay the course.' Yeah, it's easy to say that from Washington, DC." Congressman Murtha, a thirty-seven year Marine Corps veteran, was talking about Karl Rove, but he might as well have referring to the cowards listed above.