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

[jmm99]

Overseas Contingency Operations are in response to Human-caused Disasters - the more politically-correct form of "man-caused disasters".

I will stick with armed conflicts caused by VNSA (Violent Non-State Actors) - as in the AQ-Taliban and associated groups pursuant to AUMF.

That doesn't fit very well on a campaign ribbon either, but it does work in my little world.

[John T. Fishel]

that launching a war against a tactic - GWOT - is stupid. But the USG - especially former President Bush - went out of its way to make certain that it, in no way, stated or implied that it was making war on religion. It is true, however, that AQ uses its interpretation of religion to justify its jihad - holy war translation - against the US and its friends and allies. Moreover, the actions taken by AQ and its allies are acts of war. The problem is one of how you fight such a war - and you can hardly fight it if you don't call it what it is. As I said in my earlier post, if the name doesn't include the word war, it fails to pass the "so what" test. I had no problem with Long War and I certainly would have no problem with the Al Qaeda War (which has the virtue of being specific about the enemy). The analogous terminolgy comes from American 17th - 19th century history when one discusses the Indian Wars, eg Red Cloud's War (1866 - 68).

Cheers

JohnT

[Entropy]

Interesting discussion so far, a lot to think about.

Going back to the OP for a minute, I have never really liked "GWOT" or "Long War," but I don't see "Overseas Contingency Operation" as any better. It's completely non-descriptive, but maybe that's the entire point.

[Bob's World]

I guess just a couple of points:

1. In populace-based conflict perception is fact. The perception of US intent is not as good as it could be right now. Understanding that that is important is the first step, then getting your operations in line with your message is the second. GEN P. showed in Iraq that no matter how bad it is you can turn it around.

2. I'm not against overwhelming, no doubt you just got your ass kicked, application of US combat power. I'm just against making that our only solution to every problem. (ME is also very big on negotiation, particularly when they are sitting down with someone who they know will honorably and respectfully kick their ass if they deserve it; and pick them up off it if they don't). When you say you are at "war" you tend to go kinetic first, and ask questions later.

[Ken White]

It's a National Sport all over the region and they are masters at what we call haggling. If you'd like an indicator of how not to do it, see our President's Now Ruz message to Iran.

They will only negotiate from a position of strength. If they do not believe their strength is adequate to get what they want, they will delay, whine, bluster and obfuscate until such time as they believe they're strong enough to prevail. They view ANY compromise as weakness.

Yes, they negotiate -- and we're rank amateurs at it and should be very cautious about entering into negotiations with them. In fact, some of the factors of our behavior in the ME about which you complain frequently were induced from earlier negotiations with various regimes in the ME wherein we foolishly bought a bill of goods because we thought they negotiated in good faith and meant what they said. Or would stick to an agreement after it no longer suited...

That said, I agree with your first point.

[Ron Humphrey]

I'm with Bob on the need to bring the perceptions in line with realities and I guess the name change is one such attempt.

That said I still feel like we would probably be ok stickin with Long War and just dropping GWOT regardless what its called this already has been and will probably still be one long war.

Any newer terminology should then be focused on the "what" or "who" it's a war against. That seems to have been the greatest issue with GWOT.

[Schmedlap]

If people are concerned about the funding and others think that the naming game is a lot of bluster over nothing, then I have a compromise suggestion: sell the naming rights (there's your funding) for the war to the highest bidder, just like you would with a stadium. For example, the Gillette War on Terror, or The Long War sponsored by Ford (built to last!), or The Overseas Contingency Operation, sponsored by Virgin Atlantic (whether you're flying overseas or fighting overseas, book your flight with Virgin!). Just a thought.

[J Wolfsberger]

Overseas Contingency Operations are in response to Human-caused Disasters - the more politically-correct form of "man-caused disasters".

If it was part of an effort to diminish them politically and socially as a step in implementing Bob's strategy of Populace-Centric Engagement, I'd be all in favor of it. Since I have a suspicious mind, I doubt that's the explanation.