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

[Ken White]

...The U.S. populace, rightfully angered demanded revenge against their attackers and a return of the perception of security enjoyed prior to the attacks.

Nor do I agree with that -- if you use the caveat 'some of', I would agree but a bare "U.S. populace" implies most and I do not believe that's the case. The chattering classes certainly did and many who hang onto their every word (fortunately far from a majority of the populace) probably did but that's still a relatively small number.

In any event, the word 'war' wasn't the problem, the way the Administration of the day handled the media was the problem.

Instead of looking at the big picture as to WHY these attacks took place, we instead colored it as "Muslims trying to destroy America" and launched a war against a tactic and a religion. The resultant operations have in large part legitimized the propaganda being spread about US intentions and have arguably put as far more at risk today than we were 7 years ago on 9/10.

The "big picture as to why" was of only marginal import. The 'why' was the issue you cite PLUS previous US actions around the world over many years PLUS the fact that the US, of all western nations due to our culture (or lack of it ) offered both the easiest target and the easiest to dislike. The first two issues could not be undone and the last issue should not be -- we may be flawed but we have far more pluses than minuses.

Then there is the biggest PLUS of all that many like to elide: Our failure for over 20 years to respond adequately to probes and provocations originating in the ME. That one factor contributed more to 9/11 than the others combined.

I'll grant that some did go the "Muslims trying to destroy America" route but in fairness, the Administration, bad as they bungled their PR effort, did not do that -- in fact they bent over backwards to avoid that. The mass media and a few voluble nutcases were the beater of the anti-Islamic drum and they were a minority. Visible and loud but still a minority. So "We" didn't do what you said.

There is no question the bad guys used that visible and loud minority's stupidity to reinforce their position. The current operations do give them some legitimizing clout but more people are becoming aware that said legitimizing is a charade.

I agree that it is arguable that our operations have placed us more at risk -- and I would argue they have not. Folks in the ME are very much into pride, honor and revenge. The phrase "An eye for an eye..." after all originated there. I'm firmly convinced that our failure to react to provocations for many years encouraged more attacks (there is a Mid Eastern way of war...) and our twin responses in 2001 and 2003 will in the long run prove far more beneficial than negative.

US Cold War policy in the Middle East worked. Continuing it 20 years after the fact contributed significantly to the current conflicts we face coming out of that region.

Having served there during the period, I do not agree that it worked then -- I do agree that continuing the same ideas has not worked in the ME since 1990.

...Any US solution that does not fully address the contribution of US Drug policies will be equally ineffective.

Agree.

...The sooner that sinks in, the sooner we will truly begin to address the growing security concerns to our nation.

I also agree with that philosophy but disagree that it is practical possibility. Further, I suspect it's not going to happen and I believe those things to be true for one reason.

We're the biggest gorilla in town right now and while we could turn the other cheek (as we did from 1979 until 2001) that would simply be seen as a sign of weakness by too many in the world. Rightly or wrongly, a big guy who's been a bully cannot get away with becoming Mr. Meeknmild. Sorry, Bob, everyone out there just isn't as nice as you are.

All that said, I agree with John T. 'War' should stay in there. If people are getting fired upon with regularity particularly by large groups of opponents with crew served weapons it's a war. Nation state involvement is not a prerequisite. Hard to justify all those CIBs, Purple Hearts and Combat decorations sans a war.

Not to mention that if the other guy strongly believes and says he IS in a war and you don't use the term, you can place yourself at a great disadvantage by not realizing how serious your problem is.

Lot of that going around...