GWOT... Nope. Long War... Nope. Overseas Contingency Operation... Yes!

[patmc]

Found this off drudge this evening, from the Washington Post:

"The End of the Global War On Terror" by Al Kamen 3/24/09

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...=news-col-blog


DOD is officially ditching GWOT, and discouraging use of the Long War, both old news. The replacement, however, will be Overseas Contingency Operation. That will show, al Qaeda!

Years from now at the American Legion, a youngster will ask a grizzled old vet, "Sir, what ribbon is that?" With pride, the proud veteran will reply, "That's my OCO ribbon. We didn't always think we'd win the OCO, but we stuck with it, and earned a hard-fought victory."

I personally am not a huge fan of GWOT, and prefer The Long War," but Overseas Contingency Operation? Not very inspiring, but that is just me.

[Ron Humphrey]

Found this off drudge this evening, from the Washington Post:

"The End of the Global War On Terror" by Al Kamen 3/24/09

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...=news-col-blog


DOD is officially ditching GWOT, and discouraging use of the Long War, both old news. The replacement, however, will be Overseas Contingency Operation. That will show, al Qaeda!

Years from now at the American Legion, a youngster will ask a grizzled old vet, "Sir, what ribbon is that?" With pride, the proud veteran will reply, "That's my OCO ribbon. We didn't always think we'd win the OCO, but we stuck with it, and earned a hard-fought victory."

I personally am not a huge fan of GWOT, and prefer The Long War," but Overseas Contingency Operation? Not very inspiring, but that is just me.

How'd you like to be the guy who has to come up with the new recruiting slogans for the figh...( counter-contingency effort) against the west.

OB- you must join us in our battle to counter the hegemonist's in their efforts to help the Afghan people develop contingencies to overcome our plans to force everybody to do what we want.

newbie- Ummm HUH

[J Wolfsberger]

It will be easier to gut the defense budget if we're only involved in a "contingency operation" than it would be if we were still in a war.

[Hacksaw]

TWADDLE!

[Bob's World]

Come on, "GWOT" was always a horrible packaging for our response to the attacks of 9/11, and contributed to an excessive focus on defeating "terrorists" over actually solving the problem at hand.

Similarly, to call the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate "wars" also skews thinking in ways that asigns an improper context to each's place in the overall larger effort of solving the problems that gave rise to 9/11.

With any luck, this renaming will be a first step in relooking US Foreign Policy and Strategy as a whole to determine how we best engage this globalized post-Cold War world so as to best achieve our national interests in a manner that does not create unnecessary friction. To continue to press the control mechanisms designed to contain a long defunct Soviet Union has placed a tremendous strain on our national reputation, treasure, and influence.

I'm all for moving forward, and that means we'll need to leave some baggage behind.

[J Wolfsberger]

Come on, "GWOT" was always a horrible packaging for our response to the attacks of 9/11, and contributed to an excessive focus on defeating "terrorists" over actually solving the problem at hand.

Similarly, to call the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan as separate "wars" also skews thinking in ways that asigns an improper context to each's place in the overall larger effort of solving the problems that gave rise to 9/11.

With any luck, this renaming will be a first step in relooking US Foreign Policy and Strategy as a whole to determine how we best engage this globalized post-Cold War world so as to best achieve our national interests in a manner that does not create unnecessary friction. To continue to press the control mechanisms designed to contain a long defunct Soviet Union has placed a tremendous strain on our national reputation, treasure, and influence.

I'm all for moving forward, and that means we'll need to leave some baggage behind.

GWOT was a lousy name. Separating Iraq and Afghanistan was a poor idea, and we did lose focus on the right problems. I'm all in favor of rethinking our Foreign Policy based on the recognition that we're not in 1985 any more. If I thought the name change was intended to address these issues, I'd be all for it.

But, "Overseas Contingency Operation?" That makes GWOT look like a good choice. The only way it makes sense is if the intent is to sweep things under the rug. I'll go back to my previous point. It's very difficult to gut the defense budget if you're fighting a war, and very easy if you're only "involved" in an "Overseas Contingency Operation."